"One more thing to break preventing my car from working and leaving me sober and stranded in the middle of nowhere, with a broken part that's only available from the dealer thereby leaving my car unrepairable by the local garage off the freeway in Idaho."
I'm going to laugh if you have a car alarm, especially if you've never had trouble with it.
"Are you telling me that I didn't get the whole story by paying the movie theater price to see it?"
No, I'm telling you that you didn't get the whole story because you weren't paying attention. I added the DVD extras bit in case you wanted to argue with me about it.
" If David's future-mother is a construct (as the environment they placed him is obviously is, and if these robots can create such wondrous things, why not let him live with the construct forever? Wouldn't that be an excellent way to learn about mankind?"
That's an interesting point, and I don't have a rebuttal to it! hehe. I have a theory if you're curious: Maybe what we saw wasn't a construct. Maybe it was simply a visual, like a hologram. Perhaps they interfaced directly into David and made him think he was seeing her. There's little to support this (it may even be contradicted), but it's also a more efficient use of resources. Something to consider: David would never be able to leave the house. (He's a robot with one real priority so that may not matter.) In any event, what I suggests makes your suggestion even more practical.
You got me there, I can't say the movie was air-tight.:)
"You're not taking the meaning of monopoly to heart, a 65-70 percent hold on a market, while the controlling interest, is not a monopoly."
I didn't call that a monopoly, or at least I certanily never meant to.
" But that will not happen, at least not in North America, because Microsoft has a monopoly elsewhere to funnel great heaping wads of cash into the market and take a piece of it."
Sony has pockets just as deep AND more to defend. Again, Microsoft isn't the biggest threat here.
" Provide proof for the existence of this "god" or shut the fuck up as the retard you apparently are. You can't possibly defend your non-provable position in any sort of intellectual argument."
"You disagree with me and I can't disprove you! GRRR! Well... I'll just call you retarded because that's all I got to make you look foolish!"
Stalemate. Science doesn't answer all your questions, either. Your position is no more provable than mine. The difference is, I'm open ideas.
Moi? I was quite politely suggesting that you may be bending the truth a little. If you took it as hostility then I really think you should get some counseling for your paranoia!
"There's nothing to win: you're arguing for an unsupportable position..."
Heh. This thread didn't start over whether or not god actually exists. You're changing the rules to try to win.
" I'm just pushing your buttons because it's fun."
Really? Then why are you trying so hard to win? You're trying to get me back.;)
"Point of order there, sport: I advised you not to hold your breath waiting for a deity to drop you a line. As for the flat-earthers, what I did was redirect a cheap shot of your own."
Horse shit.
"This is a pointless tangent, since you haven't produced any evidence of a deity's existence. (and sorry, your feelings aren't evidence.)"
If God's existence were proven, then why would we be having a discussion about faith? Yer tryin awfully hard to win here.
" Since he understood that his mom could only be there for one day, why couldn't he have fun with her, go to bed and then wake up after she was gone?"
Because while dreaming, he didn't know she was gone. His program would be fulfilled until he discovered she was dead. Seeing it would have undone what the super robots were trying to do.
"Hell, as a geek, how can you accept the whole ultra-light submarine transformer thingy?! How lame was that?!"
Mixed feelings. On the one hand, seems like a strange vehicle to put together. On the other, the world's sea level had drastically risen. More interestingly, it didn't play that big of part in the movie. Yes,it got David to where he was supposed to go, but that could have been accomplished mainly by using lengthier means. Not really that important
"What if Indy was a dad, like Sean Connery was? Suddenly all the complaints of old age fade away..."
Are you kidding? It'd fuel a new breed of complaints.
The problem with movie sequals, ESPECIALLY with movies that have already had a couple of them, is that people start seeing rules getting formed. Suddenly, everybody KNOWS how to make a sequal for that franchise. When one of thoes rules is broken, suddenly people rise and argue with it. (Usually passing this off as intelligence.) Even devastating rationale won't shut them up. Don't believe me? Go look for fanboy discussions on Episode III.
"... but why the need for anything after Osment dies at the bottom of the ocean?"
That was the best part of the movie!! Sadly, in a lot of ways, it was a little too subtle. (note: I don't blame the movie viewers for that, I think they made some questionable decisions at that part of the movie.)
David had a really nasty programming problem. He was hard-wired to 'love' one woman, his mom. Unfortunately, this program couldn't have been changed. David could, for all practical purposes, live forever, but his mother could not. After he was frozen underwater, he was found by the robots of the day. They survived, the human race didn't. When they found him, they interfaced with him, and worked out his program. (Thus evidenced by the 'touching scene' where his memories were being played back on their faces.)
As robots, it's easy to imagine they were quite sympathetic to David. He had a program that couldn't be fulfilled. Out of compassion, they found a creative way to fulfill his program. They gave him a bs story about bringing his mother back for only one day. (If you're curious what I mean about BS, consider that she was 'brought back', had all kinds of love for David, but never once asked where her husband or other child were. She was too good to be true. Fortunately, David was naieve.) David understood the one-day rule. So he spent the day with her and had the fun that he could. He knew when she'd fade away. When it was time for bed, he fell asleep before she did. If he were to wake up, he'd discover she was gone and his program would be fucked. So, instead, he fell asleep never to awaken. He dreamt, presumably of her.
Great solution to a really tough problem. I have a great affection for this movie, mainly because I really think most movies would have ended with him 'dying' under the water instead of trying to do something more meaningful. Very satisfying.
"when did/. become a movie news/gossip/rumor site? really, if i wanted to know about trash like that, i'd watch entertainment tonight."
It's always been like that. Okay, it's not interesting to you, but how many 'nerds' aren't into Indiana Jones? I mean, for crying out loud, the dude was an archaelogist AND a ladies man!
And Jaws And Starwars And Close Encounters And Schindlers List And Raiders of The Lost Ark And Duel And many others...
... and that AI was actually a good movie. But I guess the moderation of my post will depend on the opinion of the movie by the randomly selected dude with the mod points.
"Hostile towards you? If you take my unwillingness to subscribe to your beliefs as hostility, then perhaps you should try to work it out in therapy."
No, I didn't. I took your suggestion that I hold my breath until I meet my maker or that I am stupid like those who believed the world to be flat as hostility.
"which fact is admitted to whenever a religious person appeals to "faith", which by definition is belief without evidence. (Or even, belief in the face of contrary evidence.)"
Fair enough. Some people let their faith blind them. Heck, 'a lot' is probably a better word than some. I don't blame you for being annoyed by that, I am too. I don't appreciate how some shoot down evolution, for example, because of what the bible says. To me, that is a closed mind. (Getting back to the earlier topic.) However, not all are like that. Some people, even some that believe in God, are open to the idea of a number of possibilities.
"And just for fun, to address your straw man about asking a deity for help: one must ask where this hypothetical deity was when millions prayed to it as they were slaughtered, or dispatched by natural disasters."
Where would the human race be if disasters didn't happen? What would be the point in creating anything if the world were perfect? Did 911, for example, kill 3,000 people or did it give the world a much needed wake-up call about what life is about?
I don't expect you to buy that, that's fine. No harm done. The point I'm making is that this sort of rationale is entirely dependent on understanding God's motives. If his goal was to create us and then rule us, then I'd be quite happy with your argument. If his goal was to create us so we'd evolve to be a great civilization, then that argument doesn't work so well. If his goal was to create us and see if we ever discover him, then using rational proof of his existence is even tougher to pull off. We don't know. That's why people seek the truth. It wouldn't be terribly smart of either side to throw up their hands, say they're convinced, and then it's done.
"Before any (worthwhile) hypothesis is evidence that can't yet be adequately explained."
If you don't believe in your hypotehsis, you'll never carry the experiment definitively through.
In any event, I don't see how God is exempt from that statement. How would one get the idea of God in their head if something that 'cannot adequately be explained' didn't happen?
Slashdot Mirror
"..but there's already something out for people that got a DUI, it basically forces you to take a breathalyzer test before your engine starts."
Would I be correct in assuming that what you're talking about is only in a certain city or county?
"One more thing to break preventing my car from working and leaving me sober and stranded in the middle of nowhere, with a broken part that's only available from the dealer thereby leaving my car unrepairable by the local garage off the freeway in Idaho."
I'm going to laugh if you have a car alarm, especially if you've never had trouble with it.
"....I happen to be a bartender, and I happen to spill a few ounces of vodka on my hands?"
Simple, light a match!
"In other words, Microsoft is learning lessons from open source software and making IIS more like Apache httpd."
Ready pitchforks!!
" It's causing unfair restrainment in a product we own."
It's unfair to you, it's more than fair for everybody else on the road.
Just remember, you own the car, you do NOT own the roads.
"Are you telling me that I didn't get the whole story by paying the movie theater price to see it?"
No, I'm telling you that you didn't get the whole story because you weren't paying attention. I added the DVD extras bit in case you wanted to argue with me about it.
" If David's future-mother is a construct (as the environment they placed him is obviously is, and if these robots can create such wondrous things, why not let him live with the construct forever? Wouldn't that be an excellent way to learn about mankind?"
:)
That's an interesting point, and I don't have a rebuttal to it! hehe. I have a theory if you're curious: Maybe what we saw wasn't a construct. Maybe it was simply a visual, like a hologram. Perhaps they interfaced directly into David and made him think he was seeing her. There's little to support this (it may even be contradicted), but it's also a more efficient use of resources. Something to consider: David would never be able to leave the house. (He's a robot with one real priority so that may not matter.) In any event, what I suggests makes your suggestion even more practical.
You got me there, I can't say the movie was air-tight.
"You're not taking the meaning of monopoly to heart, a 65-70 percent hold on a market, while the controlling interest, is not a monopoly."
I didn't call that a monopoly, or at least I certanily never meant to.
" But that will not happen, at least not in North America, because Microsoft has a monopoly elsewhere to funnel great heaping wads of cash into the market and take a piece of it."
Sony has pockets just as deep AND more to defend. Again, Microsoft isn't the biggest threat here.
" Provide proof for the existence of this "god" or shut the fuck up as the retard you apparently are. You can't possibly defend your non-provable position in any sort of intellectual argument."
"You disagree with me and I can't disprove you! GRRR! Well... I'll just call you retarded because that's all I got to make you look foolish!"
Stalemate. Science doesn't answer all your questions, either. Your position is no more provable than mine. The difference is, I'm open ideas.
"Well, that certrainly sounds hostile."
;)
Moi? I was quite politely suggesting that you may be bending the truth a little. If you took it as hostility then I really think you should get some counseling for your paranoia!
"There's nothing to win: you're arguing for an unsupportable position..."
Heh. This thread didn't start over whether or not god actually exists. You're changing the rules to try to win.
" I'm just pushing your buttons because it's fun."
Really? Then why are you trying so hard to win? You're trying to get me back.
"My mother is allergic to grilled chicken you insensitive clod."
I didn't say anything about your mom. Why are you being so fowl?
"Point of order there, sport: I advised you not to hold your breath waiting for a deity to drop you a line. As for the flat-earthers, what I did was redirect a cheap shot of your own."
Horse shit.
"This is a pointless tangent, since you haven't produced any evidence of a deity's existence. (and sorry, your feelings aren't evidence.)"
If God's existence were proven, then why would we be having a discussion about faith? Yer tryin awfully hard to win here.
"Today I am that randomly selected dude and I choose to mod you "-1 Offtopic". I have a bad hair day."
Heh. I once got a flamebait moderation over a comment I made about grilled chicken.
"Huh? Robots? I always thought those beings were aliens..."
No, they weren't. This is evidenced by the scene where they 'touch' David and pull his memories. Also, the DVD's extras are pretty clear on it.
" Since he understood that his mom could only be there for one day, why couldn't he have fun with her, go to bed and then wake up after she was gone?"
Because while dreaming, he didn't know she was gone. His program would be fulfilled until he discovered she was dead. Seeing it would have undone what the super robots were trying to do.
"Hell, as a geek, how can you accept the whole ultra-light submarine transformer thingy?! How lame was that?!"
Mixed feelings. On the one hand, seems like a strange vehicle to put together. On the other, the world's sea level had drastically risen. More interestingly, it didn't play that big of part in the movie. Yes,it got David to where he was supposed to go, but that could have been accomplished mainly by using lengthier means. Not really that important
"PS: Everyone already knew what you were 'explaining' about the robot's BS story."
Then explain to me why 'everybody' argued about the plausibility of bringing somebody back from the dead, but only for a day.
"What if Indy was a dad, like Sean Connery was? Suddenly all the complaints of old age fade away..."
Are you kidding? It'd fuel a new breed of complaints.
The problem with movie sequals, ESPECIALLY with movies that have already had a couple of them, is that people start seeing rules getting formed. Suddenly, everybody KNOWS how to make a sequal for that franchise. When one of thoes rules is broken, suddenly people rise and argue with it. (Usually passing this off as intelligence.) Even devastating rationale won't shut them up. Don't believe me? Go look for fanboy discussions on Episode III.
Or just buy the original trilogy.
"... but why the need for anything after Osment dies at the bottom of the ocean?"
That was the best part of the movie!! Sadly, in a lot of ways, it was a little too subtle. (note: I don't blame the movie viewers for that, I think they made some questionable decisions at that part of the movie.)
David had a really nasty programming problem. He was hard-wired to 'love' one woman, his mom. Unfortunately, this program couldn't have been changed. David could, for all practical purposes, live forever, but his mother could not. After he was frozen underwater, he was found by the robots of the day. They survived, the human race didn't. When they found him, they interfaced with him, and worked out his program. (Thus evidenced by the 'touching scene' where his memories were being played back on their faces.)
As robots, it's easy to imagine they were quite sympathetic to David. He had a program that couldn't be fulfilled. Out of compassion, they found a creative way to fulfill his program. They gave him a bs story about bringing his mother back for only one day. (If you're curious what I mean about BS, consider that she was 'brought back', had all kinds of love for David, but never once asked where her husband or other child were. She was too good to be true. Fortunately, David was naieve.) David understood the one-day rule. So he spent the day with her and had the fun that he could. He knew when she'd fade away. When it was time for bed, he fell asleep before she did. If he were to wake up, he'd discover she was gone and his program would be fucked. So, instead, he fell asleep never to awaken. He dreamt, presumably of her.
Great solution to a really tough problem. I have a great affection for this movie, mainly because I really think most movies would have ended with him 'dying' under the water instead of trying to do something more meaningful. Very satisfying.
John Goodman playing Indy after letting himself go...
"That Ford is too old to be doing this. "
So was Sean Connery.
"when did /. become a movie news/gossip/rumor site? really, if i wanted to know about trash like that, i'd watch entertainment tonight."
It's always been like that. Okay, it's not interesting to you, but how many 'nerds' aren't into Indiana Jones? I mean, for crying out loud, the dude was an archaelogist AND a ladies man!
"Hostile towards you? If you take my unwillingness to subscribe to your beliefs as hostility, then perhaps you should try to work it out in therapy."
No, I didn't. I took your suggestion that I hold my breath until I meet my maker or that I am stupid like those who believed the world to be flat as hostility.
"which fact is admitted to whenever a religious person appeals to "faith", which by definition is belief without evidence. (Or even, belief in the face of contrary evidence.)"
Fair enough. Some people let their faith blind them. Heck, 'a lot' is probably a better word than some. I don't blame you for being annoyed by that, I am too. I don't appreciate how some shoot down evolution, for example, because of what the bible says. To me, that is a closed mind. (Getting back to the earlier topic.) However, not all are like that. Some people, even some that believe in God, are open to the idea of a number of possibilities.
"And just for fun, to address your straw man about asking a deity for help: one must ask where this hypothetical deity was when millions prayed to it as they were slaughtered, or dispatched by natural disasters."
Where would the human race be if disasters didn't happen? What would be the point in creating anything if the world were perfect? Did 911, for example, kill 3,000 people or did it give the world a much needed wake-up call about what life is about?
I don't expect you to buy that, that's fine. No harm done. The point I'm making is that this sort of rationale is entirely dependent on understanding God's motives. If his goal was to create us and then rule us, then I'd be quite happy with your argument. If his goal was to create us so we'd evolve to be a great civilization, then that argument doesn't work so well. If his goal was to create us and see if we ever discover him, then using rational proof of his existence is even tougher to pull off. We don't know. That's why people seek the truth. It wouldn't be terribly smart of either side to throw up their hands, say they're convinced, and then it's done.
"Before any (worthwhile) hypothesis is evidence that can't yet be adequately explained."
If you don't believe in your hypotehsis, you'll never carry the experiment definitively through.
In any event, I don't see how God is exempt from that statement. How would one get the idea of God in their head if something that 'cannot adequately be explained' didn't happen?