Congratulations! My first "real" Mac (as opposed to obsolescent hand-me-down museum piece) is the 867MHz 12" I got earlier this year. True, the new models are drool-worthy, but I've never been so completely enamoured with a machine as I am with my PowerBook. It's a constant joy to use, and has become an indispensible part of my life.
I still keep a PC for gaming, but for everything else I can't imagine going back to Wintel. There's just no comparison.
I love going to concerts in small venues (clubs and such). It's great because there's usually stuff for sale there that you can't get anywhere else (t-shirts, bumper stickers, CD singles, etc.), and you stand a decent chance of actually getting to meet the band and chat w/them.
I also like knowing that what I buy there is directly going to the band. Waaaay back when (probably 10 years ago) I had the pleasure of seeing Chem Lab in Gainesville, FL with a group of friends. G'ville is a college town, and it was the middle of summer, so the turnout was fairly minimal. We all bought t-shirts after the show, and one of the guys in the band mentioned that we'd just bought them breakfast the next day.
I've never gotten the feeling of supporting music that I love so directly. You certainly don't get that from buying a CD at Fluff Music Warehouse in the mall.
...this is also excellent news! Now I can go back to Ybor on a Saturday night and enjoy the corporate facade that has largely replaced the once-vibrant subculture there, and get vomited on by drunken frat boys without fear of Skynet targeting me for termination! Delightful!
Seriously, I'm happy about this victory. Now we just need to get rid of the damn cameras! (I wouldn't mind the Gestapo Cops leaving too, but one step at a time.)
The theory behind Bluetooth is awesome- a flexible, low-power, very short-range wireless medium (a personal area network of sorts) that can be used to connect a multitude of devices.
The reality, at least for Mac users, lives up to the theory beautifully. While it's true that the store shelves aren't crammed with Bluetooth devices, the ones that are out there are top notch.
Personally, I have three BT-enabled devices- a 12" PowerBook, a T68m phone, and a Jabra BT 200 headset. I use all three constantly.
I have a couple of friends who are SMS freaks, and I use the PB to send & receive SMS messages with them via the phone. It's SO much easier being able to use a full keyboard instead of the phone's keypad! If a message comes in on the phone it appears in a window on the laptop, and I can reply right away. Also, I synchronize phone books between the PB and cell phone. At home, if I'm working on the laptop and the phone rings it also acts as a caller ID, letting me decide if it's worthwhile to go into the kitchen and get the phone off of the charger to answer it.
Additionally, the Sony Ericsson Clicker application lets you run any AppleScript-able function through the phone. Since you really can do just about anything through AppleScript, the phone becomes a remote control for the computer. It's a nifty novelty that's actually come in handy for me several times.
I just got the headset on Monday, and I'm glad I didn't read the review before making my purchase! I love it to death, and haven't had any problems with range or interference. Voice dialing is effortless, and the convenience of keeping both hands available while talking is far greater than I would've expected. (For me the choice was also a matter of asthetics, as the headset will be integrated into a cyberpunk costume at DragonCon at the end of this month.)
I've heard people compare Bluetooth with 802.11, and I don't think that it's a fair comparison. While there is some overlap in what you can do with the two technologies, I find that they compliment each other very nicely, rather than compete. I like the added security that BT's range provides, and my favorite function of the Clicker application wouldn't work with a longer range protocol. If I'm watching a movie or listening to music on the Mac and leave the room (presumably with the phone on my hip), Clicker will automatically pause whatever I'm listening to. When I return, it starts back up with no interference from me. Nice!
You're absolutely right! I just got back from seeing Tomb Raider, and it definitely fits into the category of "movies that suck that'll make a profit anyway" (though it did have Angelina Jolie, which alone is enough to happily entertain everyone in my house (male & female alike) for a couple of hours).
Before the flick, however, was the MPAA ad with the guy who met his wife on the set of "The Big Chill". The ad was a riot! I couldn't believe what I was seeing and couldn't stop laughing!
Hell, I'm gonna go see if I can pull it down from KaZaA right now!
OK, I'm off-topic here, but this needs to be said.
After seeing T3 yet again, a friend and I were discussing some of the technical flaws in T3. One of my biggies was the practical infeasibility of having a system as complex as a sentient AI that could distribute itself as broadly as Skynet was able to without people noticing. The closest scenario that I could come up with would be if it piggybacked onto SETI@Home, but that's limited by the low frequency with which SETI accesses the net.
My friend (thanks, Ryan) completely trumped my argument with two words: Windows Update.
It's perfect! The black box nature of Windows would allow `em to push down anything they want ("Security Update"="Updated Nuclear Launch Codes") and Joe User would be none the wiser. Sure ZoneAlarm lets you monitor and block internet access- for everything that the API (published by M$) will give it access to! The only thing that could force it to behave would be an uncorrupted intermediary watchdog.
So please, for the sake of all mankind, if you must use Windoze, please route your `Net connection through a *NIX box of your choice with a packet sniffer! Think of the children!;-)
Unfortunately, you can't simply disregard lost jobs because new ones will be created- it's more complex than that. The new opportunities opened up are only meaningful if the people being displaced can be trained for the new opportunities quickly, and if the new work is equivalent. Losing your comfy office IT job so you can go scrub the robot factory floor doesn't sound like a good trade to me.
People's jobs being replaced by robots has the same net effect as outsourcing- whether it's to a guy in India or a robot in Zero/One makes little difference.
Switching gears for a minute, looking long-term what we need to be concentrating on is not just replacing people with robots, but with enhancing ourselves so that we remain competitive with our synthetic bretheren. If a `bot can produce 100 widgets/hr or do 10 gazillion calculations per second, I want enhancements that'll let me produce 100 widgets/hr AND do 10 gazillion calculations per second, while leaving the remaining meat components of my brain free to write ad copy for widgets or play Trogdor or whatever.
In the end, we can't beat the machines, but we can become them.
As much as the idea of robots doing all the work, leaving humans free to do art, download pr0n, or whatever is compelling, it'll never happen.
Why? Because the societies and cultures that thrive long-term are the ones that maximize their competitiveness. Assuming that robots are ubiquitous, if Culture A lets the `bots do all the work and lets the citizens watch cartoons all day, while Culture B puts the `bots to work but keeps the pressure on the humans to be productive as well, Culture B is going to outcompete Culture A. You end up in a situation where one society finds its standard of living declining despite tech advances, while the other is wealthy but too overworked to enjoy it. Sound familiar?
Look at what's happened as our technology has advanced thus far. While our productivity has gone through the roof our free time to enjoy the fruits of our labor has decreased. I have a game machine at home with more processing power than existed in the entire world when I was born, a rack of DVDs, every video game I loved as a kid crammed into a 12" laptop, and can carry >10 days worth of music on my belt. They all go largely unused. What good does any of it do me when I'm at work ~60hrs/week? When I'm not at work I just want to spend time catching up with my family. I'd take a lower-paying job to be able to have a life outside of work, but in the IT industry there appear to be no low-stress jobs.
Another way to look at it is that as personal productivity increases, pay decreases by the same rate. If I could take my desk, the computers on it, and the printer down the hall back in time 50 years I could easily take the jobs of an entire steno pool, accounting department, and publishing shop. Between spreadsheet programs, word processing software, desktop publishing, and laser printers I could collect the paychecks of 50 people and be home in time for dinner. With that kind of office automation surely we as a society would have more leisure time, but we don't- we just have cooler toys and even more stress.
I'm not saying that robots or technology are bad things. Quite the contrary- I wouldn't want to live 50 years ago because most of the things that interest me didn't exist then. It just seems as though for all of the wonders that technology has brought us there are two things that seem to remain beyond it's grasp- increased free time and reduced stress.
Back in the mid to late 70's Dick Van Dyke did a public service announcement that ran during Saturday morning cartoons advising kids "if you ever catch on fire, remember to stop, drop, and roll!". Sure, it's a pretty bizzare topic for a PSA, but as a 7 year-old child I didn't give it a second thought. I also didn't realize that, like the "2 all-beef patty..." ingredients of the Big Mac, this esoteric little bit of information was etched into the hidden recesses of my brain. I never gave it a thought.
Fast forward to Christmas of `98 (IIRC). My wife and I were at a party with a bunch of friends. It was a renaissance-themed party, so we were all dressed in ren faire garb, there was period music and food, the house was lit with candles, etc.
My wife has beautiful hair, and it's very long. No, really. When it's down it's a few inches below her knees. It's simply amazing.
At one point we decided that a group photo was in order. My wife doesn't enjoy having her photo taken, so she volunteered to snap the picture. The rest of us piled onto or around the sofa and she stepped back to take the picture. Unable to get us all into the frame, she leaned back over a low table that was right behind her... and over a candle that was on the table.
From our perspective in front of her the only thing that looked odd was that little bits of light seemed to be appearing behind her, almost like an aura. She took the photo and felt something strange behind her. She turned around to see what was behind her and a collective gasp filled the room as the rest of us saw the surface of her hair on fire!
Time stopped. I have never in my life been more terrified than I was at the sight of the person dearest to me in the world- on fire. Everyone was frozen with panic, and I was incapable of conscious thought- except for that one little thought in the back of my brain.
"STOP DROP AND ROLL!!!" The words came out of my mouth before I realized that I was saying them. Thank God, this was the one (and thus far only) time she did what I said, immediately and without question.
Ladies and gentlemen, "stop drop and roll" works. Aside from her hair she was completely unharmed, and because she reacted so quickly only the surface of her hair was burned (hard to describe). We brushed it out, put a bottle of leave-in conditioner in, shared a good cry, and continued with the evening. The stench of burnt hair lasted for days, but after it was washed and combed the damage was hardly noticeable (except to her, of course). Now, years later, the damage has completely grown out.
I tried to find Mr. Van Dyke's e-mail address so I could send him a personal thank-you for saving her hair, and possibly her life, but never did locate one. I was never a big fan of his movies or TV shows, but I do feel indebted to him.
I have to differ with you, at least based on current technology. 802.11 and Bluetooth are both wonderful technologies, and complement each other well.
For example, my laptop is equipped with both, and I use both on a daily basis. I access 802.11b networks as my primary connectivity means at home and as a secondary option at work.
I use bluetooth to connect the laptop and my cell phone (and my girlfriend's cell phone as well). Being able to synchronize phone books between the two devices is nice, but there are two other uses which people seem to overlook.
1) If you send and receive a lot of text messages via cell phone, the ability to use the full keyboard instead of the phone's keypad is a godsend! I have some friends who are text message nuts, and I love being able to effectively use text messaging like a ubiquitous chat client even while my phone is in the next room.
2) My laptop is an Apple PowerBook, and the Sony-Ericsson Clicker software is a true killer app! It's functionality is limited only by what can be scripted for it (which is damn near anything the computer can do), and I'm able to do things with my phone and computer that are downright sci-fi. For example, I'm listening to music on it right now. If I get up and leave the room it'll pause all on its own, and resume when I come back. I don't have to do a thing- it's completely automatic, and I've gotten so accustomed to it that it seems perfectly natural now. It's an example where the range limitations of Bluetooth are an advantage.
Obviously the shorter range lends itself to greater security as well, which is also a consideration for Bluetooth headsets.
OK, without getting into a geek pissing contest over who the most obsessive Terminator fan in existence is, I've spent a frightening percentage of my life collecting, studying, and pondering all things Terminator. It doesn't speak well about me actually having a life, but having consumed every script rewrite, novelization, production note, and version of both films that's available to the public (as well as a bit or two that isn't), I do feel that I'm qualified to speak on this subject with some authority.
First off, there is no firmly established cannon for the Terminator series, and there are enough conflicts between differing versions of each movie to prevent one from being able to point to the movies as being the final say. With that said, the most internally consistent tellings of the Terminator story seem to be the novels by William Wisher and Randall Frakes.
Both are very close to the films, but with much more background detail and making a bit more logical sense. The T1 novel is based on the shooting script for the movie, while the T2 novel was based on a pre-production version of the script that had a couple of last-minute changes and edits before it became a shooting script- mostly for budgetary reasons and to make the final scene a bit more climactic on screen.
That having been said, here's the reason why there are multiple Arnies (in more detail than you probably ever wanted. Sorry.):
Skynet patterns the terminators to look like normal (albeit somewhat large) humans. Whether it uses real humans as the pattern (as indicated in the "Infiltrator" novels) or makes up original designs on its own is never firmly established- probably a bit of both. Regardless, it clearly can't make them ALL look just like Schwarzenegger- it would be way too easy to spot them. (In T1, Reese mentions to Sarah that he couldn't ID the terminator until it made a move on her.)
For the sake of efficiency (and to allow Arnie to be both movies), Skynet compromised- it made 10 copies of each "flesh persona", which would then be scattered around to different locations to prevent identification of duplicates. The terminator that was sent back in the first movie was the first of it's type, leaving 9 more just like it in the vault when Skynet was shut down. The human resistance came in, grabbed the next one off of the rack, and programmed it to be John Connor's protector in the second movie. Again, this is all detailed in the T2 novel, as well as in the original script for the movie. (Originally the future war scene at the beginning was supposed to be much longer, with more exposition and featuring a few new pieces of Skynet hardware (glimpses of which can still be seen in the T2 arcade game and pinball machine), but it would've broken the budget of the already very expensive movie.)
Of course, the writers are really under no obligation to keep the story consistent for the third movie, but I certainly hope that they do so.
As a side note, in the novel they DID pull the wrecked arm out of the machinery and melt it down also. I don't recall if that was actually part of the original script or not.
As an additional side note (sorry, I'm obsessive), the full nomenclature of the Arnie/Terminators that we've seen is the Cyberdyne Systems 800 Series Model 101 Version 2.4. (Watch the deleted chip-switching scene from T2 on frame advance when he reboots and you'll see what I mean.) The 800 series refers to the basic endoskeleton type. We know that the 600 series had rubber skin, and that neither the 600 series nor the 700 series was well armored- either could be taken out with a few well-placed shotgun blasts at close range.
[PERSONAL SPECULATION MODE] Model 101 is probably just that- the hardware model version (possibly general body type), and v2.4 is most likely a software/firmware version. I don't imagine that Skynet would encode the flesh persona's ID into the BIOS, particularly since a significant percentage of endoskeletons had no flesh at all, and were simply the foot soldiers in Skynet's army. [/PERSONAL SPECULATION MODE]
OK, I'm off the soap box now. I'm gonna go take my meds.;-)
1) Taking Sloppy's scenario literally, the destruction of an entire planet in the Star Wars universe is a terrible thing, but nowhere close to the extinction of all life. By the time the technology for a Death Star (or equivalent WMD) arises, we will most likely have spread beyond a single planet.
Addressing your interpretation of point one the point remains roughly the same. Planetary ecosystems are durable, flexible things. Sudden changes may throw them off kilter temporarily (with a not insignificant level of suckage, but ANY survival is meaningful, as it means a chance for an improved future), but soon enough a new equilibrium point is reached. The end result may not closely resemble the original, but it is still (generally) a viable ecosystem, and as time passes and the indiginous organisms continue to adapt to the new conditions it may very well flourish beyond it's pre-cataclysm state. It would take an awful lot to totally kill an entire planetary ecosystem. No single cause short of a massive asteroid impact or (possibly) an all-out thermonuclear war would stand a significant chance of wiping out even the entire human race, let alone all life.
2) As I indicated above, wiping out a significant percentage of the human race would suck beyond the telling of it, but in the grand scheme of things even such a disaster would be overcome in time. The difference between wiping out 98% of the human race and wiping out 100% of it isn't 2%, it's infinite! (Particularly for the 2%!) A miniscule survival rate means that there ARE survivors, and humans have a knack for adapting to adversity and replenishing their numbers.
To that end, if Mother Nature *IS* going to wipe us all out she'd better hurry. If you look back at human history, it is the story of nature having an ever-decreasing control over the lives and deaths of mankind. Back when our entire species lived in sub-Saharan Africa a single plague, contaminated food supply, or major climate change could've easily wiped us all out. No longer.
ET's aside, Nature's (if I may anthropomorphize) last opportunity to exterminate our species via a stronger competitor died out with the Neanderthals. Her last real opportunity to wipe us all out via a single disease ended with the Black Plague. Nature blew both opportunities, and our species grew smarter, more diverse, and more numerous to the point where neither scenario presents a realistic threat of total extinction anymore. Our annihilation is slipping out of "her" grasp. At this point, for Nature to do us all in would require that she escalate to a major meteor strike or worse, and it's only a matter of time before we spread to other planets, allowing us to dodge even that bullet.
The war for survival isn't over yet, and may very well never be, but we're doing a damn fine job so far.
Wow! I thought I was the only one who actually *plays* the Doomsday mods! You're absolutely right- they're fantastic upgrades to classic games. The graphics are far beyond the originals, and the download is worth it just for the ability to mouselook and look straight up and down.
If anyone out there in the Dreamcast homebrew community is reading this, wouldn't Duke 3D make a wonderful DC port? The DC's hardware could easily handle it, and personally I'd love to network play it with my Dreamcast homies!:-) It'd also make a nicer addition to the standard DCLinux image than Doom (which is still pretty nifty).
I wonder, though, how difficult it would be to remove Duke's dependence on IPX and replace it with TCP/IP.
This is yet another ridiculous red herring by the GDI to maintain their economic advantage against the impoverished nations of the Brotherhood! GDI wants to impose these harvester sanctions so that Nod will be dependent on GDI for power.
Yes, the Brotherhood of Nod does have harvesters, but we use them to power our cities, run our industry, and remain economically viable. Under GDI's sanctions the whole of Africa would be overun with hazardous tiberium in months! We cannot allow our children to be poisoned by this dangerous substance!
It's common knowledge that Nod's tiberium refining capability is not sufficient to produce weapons-grade tiberium, yet GDI continues to fill our skies with ion cannon satellites, all the while claiming to be a "peacekeeping force". This is an outrage.
I call upon the UN General Assembly to end these illegal sanctions and disband the criminal Global Defense Initiative.
WOW! I haven't thought about that movie in at least 10 years! You've hit the nail on the head.
Off topic- if you wanna get your fill of the lovely Sherilyn Fenn sans clothing, by all means rent 'Full Moon Junction'. It's worth it just for her! Mmmmmm...
I've spoken with so many people who absolutely loved this movie, and It's the only flick I've ever fallen asleep during.
I had a girlfriend for whom it was her absolute favorite movie. We had a bunch of people over hanging out one night and we'd rented it. We started watching it, and after 20 minutes I looked around the room. It was like freakin' Jonestown! EVERYONE was passed out (IIRC, nobody had been drinking) except me, and I was hanging on by a thread. I decided 'heck with it' and fell asleep on the floor among the other bodies.
I absolutely agree that Buckaroo Banzai is a classic. I'd probably put it in my top 5 of all time.
Since Kurt Russell movies have been mentioned in this thread, let me throw Soldier into the ring. Besides being a great popcorn sci-fi action flick, I think it's one of Russell's best. He manages to convey tremendous depth of character despite having about 20 words in the entire movie. Also, the transitions from battle to battle throughout his military "career" are wonderfully done.
Off topic- has anyone ever noticed how whenever Kurt Russell and John Carpenter do a DVD commentary together they spend about 5 minutes talking about the movie and the rest of the time just bullshitting? I, for one, absolutely love it.
Actually, with the exception of the front face it does have a metallic finish, and unlike the G3 and SP it's because it's actually made of metal! Mmmmmm... metal...
It wipes the floor with the Game Boy in terms of storage capacity- 20GB vs 32MB, and the controls are downright sci-fi! However, the SP takes the crown for color display. For games things become a bit unclear. I must concede that Breakout's replayability is rather limited, but since I can fit all of my.mp3s, 4.5GB of MAME ROMs, and all of my Invader Zim episodes in it with tons of room to spare, technically my iPod *has* better games- I just can't play them on it.
Most importantly, however, since I've just dropped $450 for an iPod I'd swear up and down that it's superior (which it is) even if the SP could make dinner and have sex with me (which it can't).;-)
I agree that the one-button mouse is absurd, but I started with PCs and currently use Macs and PCs roughly equally. Most of the people I know who've used Macs from the start have no problem with a one-button, given that Ctrl-click performs the same function as a right click.
I guess it all depends on what you're used to. I'm typing this message on my new PowerBook, and after the first couple of days I've hardly given it a second thought. I can certainly see where you might be annoyed by it, but it seems a shame that you consider it to be a deal breaker.
Another thing to bear in mind is that you always have the option of plugging in any USB 3-button mouse- no drivers required. When I'm at a desk using a full keyboard and mouse the mouse is a Compaq (Logitech) 3-button scroll mouse which works like a champ for me. Additionally, I know that Kensington makes some pretty amazing trackballs that are Mac-only, so there's really no dearth of multi-button options.
To each his own, of course.
BTW, I'd love to see your ad idea produced, but they'd have to find a way to include a couple of lingerie-clad women having a catfight.;-)
What frightens me about this is that I happen to be friends with a Dr. Kim Brown, PhD, and strangely haven't heard from her in some time. Not that I'm a conspiracy theorist or anything [FNORD].
Wow. That's one of the worst "missed opportunities" stories I've ever heard. I weep for you, dude.
Here's my closest equivalent advice to myself:
When that hot little petite goth chick tells you that she wants your girlfriend, tell her to go for it. She's not kidding, and your girlfriend (now wife) has the hots for her too.
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations! My first "real" Mac (as opposed to obsolescent hand-me-down museum piece) is the 867MHz 12" I got earlier this year. True, the new models are drool-worthy, but I've never been so completely enamoured with a machine as I am with my PowerBook. It's a constant joy to use, and has become an indispensible part of my life.
I still keep a PC for gaming, but for everything else I can't imagine going back to Wintel. There's just no comparison.
-Cybrex
I love going to concerts in small venues (clubs and such). It's great because there's usually stuff for sale there that you can't get anywhere else (t-shirts, bumper stickers, CD singles, etc.), and you stand a decent chance of actually getting to meet the band and chat w/them.
I also like knowing that what I buy there is directly going to the band. Waaaay back when (probably 10 years ago) I had the pleasure of seeing Chem Lab in Gainesville, FL with a group of friends. G'ville is a college town, and it was the middle of summer, so the turnout was fairly minimal. We all bought t-shirts after the show, and one of the guys in the band mentioned that we'd just bought them breakfast the next day.
I've never gotten the feeling of supporting music that I love so directly. You certainly don't get that from buying a CD at Fluff Music Warehouse in the mall.
-Cybrex
Great response! :-) I guess he should've said that it applies to all >products, as opposed to services.
Cheers,
-Cybrex
...this is also excellent news! Now I can go back to Ybor on a Saturday night and enjoy the corporate facade that has largely replaced the once-vibrant subculture there, and get vomited on by drunken frat boys without fear of Skynet targeting me for termination! Delightful!
Seriously, I'm happy about this victory. Now we just need to get rid of the damn cameras! (I wouldn't mind the Gestapo Cops leaving too, but one step at a time.)
-Cybrex
It doesn't because the line is "*SHALL* we play a game?".
Sorry. I hate to be a quote nazi, but I hear that misquoted all the time, and it makes me cringe. I'll go back to sleep now.
-Cybrex
The theory behind Bluetooth is awesome- a flexible, low-power, very short-range wireless medium (a personal area network of sorts) that can be used to connect a multitude of devices.
The reality, at least for Mac users, lives up to the theory beautifully. While it's true that the store shelves aren't crammed with Bluetooth devices, the ones that are out there are top notch.
Personally, I have three BT-enabled devices- a 12" PowerBook, a T68m phone, and a Jabra BT 200 headset. I use all three constantly.
I have a couple of friends who are SMS freaks, and I use the PB to send & receive SMS messages with them via the phone. It's SO much easier being able to use a full keyboard instead of the phone's keypad! If a message comes in on the phone it appears in a window on the laptop, and I can reply right away. Also, I synchronize phone books between the PB and cell phone. At home, if I'm working on the laptop and the phone rings it also acts as a caller ID, letting me decide if it's worthwhile to go into the kitchen and get the phone off of the charger to answer it.
Additionally, the Sony Ericsson Clicker application lets you run any AppleScript-able function through the phone. Since you really can do just about anything through AppleScript, the phone becomes a remote control for the computer. It's a nifty novelty that's actually come in handy for me several times.
I just got the headset on Monday, and I'm glad I didn't read the review before making my purchase! I love it to death, and haven't had any problems with range or interference. Voice dialing is effortless, and the convenience of keeping both hands available while talking is far greater than I would've expected. (For me the choice was also a matter of asthetics, as the headset will be integrated into a cyberpunk costume at DragonCon at the end of this month.)
I've heard people compare Bluetooth with 802.11, and I don't think that it's a fair comparison. While there is some overlap in what you can do with the two technologies, I find that they compliment each other very nicely, rather than compete. I like the added security that BT's range provides, and my favorite function of the Clicker application wouldn't work with a longer range protocol. If I'm watching a movie or listening to music on the Mac and leave the room (presumably with the phone on my hip), Clicker will automatically pause whatever I'm listening to. When I return, it starts back up with no interference from me. Nice!
-Cybrex
You're absolutely right! I just got back from seeing Tomb Raider, and it definitely fits into the category of "movies that suck that'll make a profit anyway" (though it did have Angelina Jolie, which alone is enough to happily entertain everyone in my house (male & female alike) for a couple of hours).
Before the flick, however, was the MPAA ad with the guy who met his wife on the set of "The Big Chill". The ad was a riot! I couldn't believe what I was seeing and couldn't stop laughing!
Hell, I'm gonna go see if I can pull it down from KaZaA right now!
-Cybrex
OK, I'm off-topic here, but this needs to be said.
;-)
After seeing T3 yet again, a friend and I were discussing some of the technical flaws in T3. One of my biggies was the practical infeasibility of having a system as complex as a sentient AI that could distribute itself as broadly as Skynet was able to without people noticing. The closest scenario that I could come up with would be if it piggybacked onto SETI@Home, but that's limited by the low frequency with which SETI accesses the net.
My friend (thanks, Ryan) completely trumped my argument with two words: Windows Update.
It's perfect! The black box nature of Windows would allow `em to push down anything they want ("Security Update"="Updated Nuclear Launch Codes") and Joe User would be none the wiser. Sure ZoneAlarm lets you monitor and block internet access- for everything that the API (published by M$) will give it access to! The only thing that could force it to behave would be an uncorrupted intermediary watchdog.
So please, for the sake of all mankind, if you must use Windoze, please route your `Net connection through a *NIX box of your choice with a packet sniffer! Think of the children!
-Cybrex
Unfortunately, you can't simply disregard lost jobs because new ones will be created- it's more complex than that. The new opportunities opened up are only meaningful if the people being displaced can be trained for the new opportunities quickly, and if the new work is equivalent. Losing your comfy office IT job so you can go scrub the robot factory floor doesn't sound like a good trade to me.
People's jobs being replaced by robots has the same net effect as outsourcing- whether it's to a guy in India or a robot in Zero/One makes little difference.
Switching gears for a minute, looking long-term what we need to be concentrating on is not just replacing people with robots, but with enhancing ourselves so that we remain competitive with our synthetic bretheren. If a `bot can produce 100 widgets/hr or do 10 gazillion calculations per second, I want enhancements that'll let me produce 100 widgets/hr AND do 10 gazillion calculations per second, while leaving the remaining meat components of my brain free to write ad copy for widgets or play Trogdor or whatever.
In the end, we can't beat the machines, but we can become them.
-Cybrex
As much as the idea of robots doing all the work, leaving humans free to do art, download pr0n, or whatever is compelling, it'll never happen.
Why? Because the societies and cultures that thrive long-term are the ones that maximize their competitiveness. Assuming that robots are ubiquitous, if Culture A lets the `bots do all the work and lets the citizens watch cartoons all day, while Culture B puts the `bots to work but keeps the pressure on the humans to be productive as well, Culture B is going to outcompete Culture A. You end up in a situation where one society finds its standard of living declining despite tech advances, while the other is wealthy but too overworked to enjoy it. Sound familiar?
Look at what's happened as our technology has advanced thus far. While our productivity has gone through the roof our free time to enjoy the fruits of our labor has decreased. I have a game machine at home with more processing power than existed in the entire world when I was born, a rack of DVDs, every video game I loved as a kid crammed into a 12" laptop, and can carry >10 days worth of music on my belt. They all go largely unused. What good does any of it do me when I'm at work ~60hrs/week? When I'm not at work I just want to spend time catching up with my family. I'd take a lower-paying job to be able to have a life outside of work, but in the IT industry there appear to be no low-stress jobs.
Another way to look at it is that as personal productivity increases, pay decreases by the same rate. If I could take my desk, the computers on it, and the printer down the hall back in time 50 years I could easily take the jobs of an entire steno pool, accounting department, and publishing shop. Between spreadsheet programs, word processing software, desktop publishing, and laser printers I could collect the paychecks of 50 people and be home in time for dinner. With that kind of office automation surely we as a society would have more leisure time, but we don't- we just have cooler toys and even more stress.
I'm not saying that robots or technology are bad things. Quite the contrary- I wouldn't want to live 50 years ago because most of the things that interest me didn't exist then. It just seems as though for all of the wonders that technology has brought us there are two things that seem to remain beyond it's grasp- increased free time and reduced stress.
-Cybrex
True story:
Back in the mid to late 70's Dick Van Dyke did a public service announcement that ran during Saturday morning cartoons advising kids "if you ever catch on fire, remember to stop, drop, and roll!". Sure, it's a pretty bizzare topic for a PSA, but as a 7 year-old child I didn't give it a second thought. I also didn't realize that, like the "2 all-beef patty..." ingredients of the Big Mac, this esoteric little bit of information was etched into the hidden recesses of my brain. I never gave it a thought.
Fast forward to Christmas of `98 (IIRC). My wife and I were at a party with a bunch of friends. It was a renaissance-themed party, so we were all dressed in ren faire garb, there was period music and food, the house was lit with candles, etc.
My wife has beautiful hair, and it's very long. No, really. When it's down it's a few inches below her knees. It's simply amazing.
At one point we decided that a group photo was in order. My wife doesn't enjoy having her photo taken, so she volunteered to snap the picture. The rest of us piled onto or around the sofa and she stepped back to take the picture. Unable to get us all into the frame, she leaned back over a low table that was right behind her... and over a candle that was on the table.
From our perspective in front of her the only thing that looked odd was that little bits of light seemed to be appearing behind her, almost like an aura. She took the photo and felt something strange behind her. She turned around to see what was behind her and a collective gasp filled the room as the rest of us saw the surface of her hair on fire!
Time stopped. I have never in my life been more terrified than I was at the sight of the person dearest to me in the world- on fire. Everyone was frozen with panic, and I was incapable of conscious thought- except for that one little thought in the back of my brain.
"STOP DROP AND ROLL!!!" The words came out of my mouth before I realized that I was saying them. Thank God, this was the one (and thus far only) time she did what I said, immediately and without question.
Ladies and gentlemen, "stop drop and roll" works. Aside from her hair she was completely unharmed, and because she reacted so quickly only the surface of her hair was burned (hard to describe). We brushed it out, put a bottle of leave-in conditioner in, shared a good cry, and continued with the evening. The stench of burnt hair lasted for days, but after it was washed and combed the damage was hardly noticeable (except to her, of course). Now, years later, the damage has completely grown out.
I tried to find Mr. Van Dyke's e-mail address so I could send him a personal thank-you for saving her hair, and possibly her life, but never did locate one. I was never a big fan of his movies or TV shows, but I do feel indebted to him.
Oh, the picture came out terribly.
-Cybrex
I have to differ with you, at least based on current technology. 802.11 and Bluetooth are both wonderful technologies, and complement each other well.
For example, my laptop is equipped with both, and I use both on a daily basis. I access 802.11b networks as my primary connectivity means at home and as a secondary option at work.
I use bluetooth to connect the laptop and my cell phone (and my girlfriend's cell phone as well). Being able to synchronize phone books between the two devices is nice, but there are two other uses which people seem to overlook.
1) If you send and receive a lot of text messages via cell phone, the ability to use the full keyboard instead of the phone's keypad is a godsend! I have some friends who are text message nuts, and I love being able to effectively use text messaging like a ubiquitous chat client even while my phone is in the next room.
2) My laptop is an Apple PowerBook, and the Sony-Ericsson Clicker software is a true killer app! It's functionality is limited only by what can be scripted for it (which is damn near anything the computer can do), and I'm able to do things with my phone and computer that are downright sci-fi. For example, I'm listening to music on it right now. If I get up and leave the room it'll pause all on its own, and resume when I come back. I don't have to do a thing- it's completely automatic, and I've gotten so accustomed to it that it seems perfectly natural now. It's an example where the range limitations of Bluetooth are an advantage.
Obviously the shorter range lends itself to greater security as well, which is also a consideration for Bluetooth headsets.
-Cybrex
OK, without getting into a geek pissing contest over who the most obsessive Terminator fan in existence is, I've spent a frightening percentage of my life collecting, studying, and pondering all things Terminator. It doesn't speak well about me actually having a life, but having consumed every script rewrite, novelization, production note, and version of both films that's available to the public (as well as a bit or two that isn't), I do feel that I'm qualified to speak on this subject with some authority.
:
;-)
First off, there is no firmly established cannon for the Terminator series, and there are enough conflicts between differing versions of each movie to prevent one from being able to point to the movies as being the final say. With that said, the most internally consistent tellings of the Terminator story seem to be the novels by William Wisher and Randall Frakes.
Both are very close to the films, but with much more background detail and making a bit more logical sense. The T1 novel is based on the shooting script for the movie, while the T2 novel was based on a pre-production version of the script that had a couple of last-minute changes and edits before it became a shooting script- mostly for budgetary reasons and to make the final scene a bit more climactic on screen.
That having been said, here's the reason why there are multiple Arnies (in more detail than you probably ever wanted. Sorry.)
Skynet patterns the terminators to look like normal (albeit somewhat large) humans. Whether it uses real humans as the pattern (as indicated in the "Infiltrator" novels) or makes up original designs on its own is never firmly established- probably a bit of both. Regardless, it clearly can't make them ALL look just like Schwarzenegger- it would be way too easy to spot them. (In T1, Reese mentions to Sarah that he couldn't ID the terminator until it made a move on her.)
For the sake of efficiency (and to allow Arnie to be both movies), Skynet compromised- it made 10 copies of each "flesh persona", which would then be scattered around to different locations to prevent identification of duplicates. The terminator that was sent back in the first movie was the first of it's type, leaving 9 more just like it in the vault when Skynet was shut down. The human resistance came in, grabbed the next one off of the rack, and programmed it to be John Connor's protector in the second movie. Again, this is all detailed in the T2 novel, as well as in the original script for the movie. (Originally the future war scene at the beginning was supposed to be much longer, with more exposition and featuring a few new pieces of Skynet hardware (glimpses of which can still be seen in the T2 arcade game and pinball machine), but it would've broken the budget of the already very expensive movie.)
Of course, the writers are really under no obligation to keep the story consistent for the third movie, but I certainly hope that they do so.
As a side note, in the novel they DID pull the wrecked arm out of the machinery and melt it down also. I don't recall if that was actually part of the original script or not.
As an additional side note (sorry, I'm obsessive), the full nomenclature of the Arnie/Terminators that we've seen is the Cyberdyne Systems 800 Series Model 101 Version 2.4. (Watch the deleted chip-switching scene from T2 on frame advance when he reboots and you'll see what I mean.) The 800 series refers to the basic endoskeleton type. We know that the 600 series had rubber skin, and that neither the 600 series nor the 700 series was well armored- either could be taken out with a few well-placed shotgun blasts at close range.
[PERSONAL SPECULATION MODE]
Model 101 is probably just that- the hardware model version (possibly general body type), and v2.4 is most likely a software/firmware version. I don't imagine that Skynet would encode the flesh persona's ID into the BIOS, particularly since a significant percentage of endoskeletons had no flesh at all, and were simply the foot soldiers in Skynet's army.
[/PERSONAL SPECULATION MODE]
OK, I'm off the soap box now. I'm gonna go take my meds.
-Cybrex
That was my first thought. `Ya gotta paint it pink first, however.
-Cybrex
Actually, I think Sloppy's probably right.
1) Taking Sloppy's scenario literally, the destruction of an entire planet in the Star Wars universe is a terrible thing, but nowhere close to the extinction of all life. By the time the technology for a Death Star (or equivalent WMD) arises, we will most likely have spread beyond a single planet.
Addressing your interpretation of point one the point remains roughly the same. Planetary ecosystems are durable, flexible things. Sudden changes may throw them off kilter temporarily (with a not insignificant level of suckage, but ANY survival is meaningful, as it means a chance for an improved future), but soon enough a new equilibrium point is reached. The end result may not closely resemble the original, but it is still (generally) a viable ecosystem, and as time passes and the indiginous organisms continue to adapt to the new conditions it may very well flourish beyond it's pre-cataclysm state. It would take an awful lot to totally kill an entire planetary ecosystem. No single cause short of a massive asteroid impact or (possibly) an all-out thermonuclear war would stand a significant chance of wiping out even the entire human race, let alone all life.
2) As I indicated above, wiping out a significant percentage of the human race would suck beyond the telling of it, but in the grand scheme of things even such a disaster would be overcome in time. The difference between wiping out 98% of the human race and wiping out 100% of it isn't 2%, it's infinite! (Particularly for the 2%!) A miniscule survival rate means that there ARE survivors, and humans have a knack for adapting to adversity and replenishing their numbers.
To that end, if Mother Nature *IS* going to wipe us all out she'd better hurry. If you look back at human history, it is the story of nature having an ever-decreasing control over the lives and deaths of mankind. Back when our entire species lived in sub-Saharan Africa a single plague, contaminated food supply, or major climate change could've easily wiped us all out. No longer.
ET's aside, Nature's (if I may anthropomorphize) last opportunity to exterminate our species via a stronger competitor died out with the Neanderthals. Her last real opportunity to wipe us all out via a single disease ended with the Black Plague. Nature blew both opportunities, and our species grew smarter, more diverse, and more numerous to the point where neither scenario presents a realistic threat of total extinction anymore. Our annihilation is slipping out of "her" grasp. At this point, for Nature to do us all in would require that she escalate to a major meteor strike or worse, and it's only a matter of time before we spread to other planets, allowing us to dodge even that bullet.
The war for survival isn't over yet, and may very well never be, but we're doing a damn fine job so far.
-Cybrex
Wow! I thought I was the only one who actually *plays* the Doomsday mods! You're absolutely right- they're fantastic upgrades to classic games. The graphics are far beyond the originals, and the download is worth it just for the ability to mouselook and look straight up and down.
:-) It'd also make a nicer addition to the standard DCLinux image than Doom (which is still pretty nifty).
If anyone out there in the Dreamcast homebrew community is reading this, wouldn't Duke 3D make a wonderful DC port? The DC's hardware could easily handle it, and personally I'd love to network play it with my Dreamcast homies!
I wonder, though, how difficult it would be to remove Duke's dependence on IPX and replace it with TCP/IP.
-Cybrex
This is yet another ridiculous red herring by the GDI to maintain their economic advantage against the impoverished nations of the Brotherhood! GDI wants to impose these harvester sanctions so that Nod will be dependent on GDI for power.
Yes, the Brotherhood of Nod does have harvesters, but we use them to power our cities, run our industry, and remain economically viable. Under GDI's sanctions the whole of Africa would be overun with hazardous tiberium in months! We cannot allow our children to be poisoned by this dangerous substance!
It's common knowledge that Nod's tiberium refining capability is not sufficient to produce weapons-grade tiberium, yet GDI continues to fill our skies with ion cannon satellites, all the while claiming to be a "peacekeeping force". This is an outrage.
I call upon the UN General Assembly to end these illegal sanctions and disband the criminal Global Defense Initiative.
In the service of Kane,
-Cybrex
WOW! I haven't thought about that movie in at least 10 years! You've hit the nail on the head.
Off topic- if you wanna get your fill of the lovely Sherilyn Fenn sans clothing, by all means rent 'Full Moon Junction'. It's worth it just for her! Mmmmmm...
-Cybrex
Wow, I must be missing something with this one.
I've spoken with so many people who absolutely loved this movie, and It's the only flick I've ever fallen asleep during.
I had a girlfriend for whom it was her absolute favorite movie. We had a bunch of people over hanging out one night and we'd rented it. We started watching it, and after 20 minutes I looked around the room. It was like freakin' Jonestown! EVERYONE was passed out (IIRC, nobody had been drinking) except me, and I was hanging on by a thread. I decided 'heck with it' and fell asleep on the floor among the other bodies.
Someday I'll give it another try.
-Cybrex
BANG!
Sorry, couldn't resist that one.
I absolutely agree that Buckaroo Banzai is a classic. I'd probably put it in my top 5 of all time.
Since Kurt Russell movies have been mentioned in this thread, let me throw Soldier into the ring. Besides being a great popcorn sci-fi action flick, I think it's one of Russell's best. He manages to convey tremendous depth of character despite having about 20 words in the entire movie. Also, the transitions from battle to battle throughout his military "career" are wonderfully done.
Off topic- has anyone ever noticed how whenever Kurt Russell and John Carpenter do a DVD commentary together they spend about 5 minutes talking about the movie and the rest of the time just bullshitting? I, for one, absolutely love it.
-Cybrex
Actually, with the exception of the front face it does have a metallic finish, and unlike the G3 and SP it's because it's actually made of metal! Mmmmmm... metal...
.mp3s, 4.5GB of MAME ROMs, and all of my Invader Zim episodes in it with tons of room to spare, technically my iPod *has* better games- I just can't play them on it.
;-)
It wipes the floor with the Game Boy in terms of storage capacity- 20GB vs 32MB, and the controls are downright sci-fi! However, the SP takes the crown for color display. For games things become a bit unclear. I must concede that Breakout's replayability is rather limited, but since I can fit all of my
Most importantly, however, since I've just dropped $450 for an iPod I'd swear up and down that it's superior (which it is) even if the SP could make dinner and have sex with me (which it can't).
-Cybrex
I agree that the one-button mouse is absurd, but I started with PCs and currently use Macs and PCs roughly equally. Most of the people I know who've used Macs from the start have no problem with a one-button, given that Ctrl-click performs the same function as a right click.
;-)
I guess it all depends on what you're used to. I'm typing this message on my new PowerBook, and after the first couple of days I've hardly given it a second thought. I can certainly see where you might be annoyed by it, but it seems a shame that you consider it to be a deal breaker.
Another thing to bear in mind is that you always have the option of plugging in any USB 3-button mouse- no drivers required. When I'm at a desk using a full keyboard and mouse the mouse is a Compaq (Logitech) 3-button scroll mouse which works like a champ for me. Additionally, I know that Kensington makes some pretty amazing trackballs that are Mac-only, so there's really no dearth of multi-button options.
To each his own, of course.
BTW, I'd love to see your ad idea produced, but they'd have to find a way to include a couple of lingerie-clad women having a catfight.
-Cybrex
Funny, that's our Windows XP deployment strategy...
-Cybrex
What frightens me about this is that I happen to be friends with a Dr. Kim Brown, PhD, and strangely haven't heard from her in some time. Not that I'm a conspiracy theorist or anything [FNORD].
:-)
BTW, cool story.
-Cybrex
Wow. That's one of the worst "missed opportunities" stories I've ever heard. I weep for you, dude.
Here's my closest equivalent advice to myself:
When that hot little petite goth chick tells you that she wants your girlfriend, tell her to go for it. She's not kidding, and your girlfriend (now wife) has the hots for her too.
That would've been a hell of a scene.
-Cybrex