From: sdr57@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Space Rangers !!Spoilers (I guess)!!
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:00:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.035335.26532@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pjm6z@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Dave Lister) writes:
>
> 2) They had to put in a plot point of humans better than machines.
>    However, when the time for the android to fail it was so ridiculous
>    that my father and I were left laughing.  Seriously, my 486 could
>    analyze all the parts that the bad guy divided into.  This is supposed
>    to be taking place in the 22nd century, we have mutli-process computers
>    now.  You mean to tell me the android couldn't process more than one
>    input or task at once?  What did they give him for a brain, an old
>    Atari computer?
>
The problem was apparently in the program, not the processor. A single
"human" target being converted into multiple parts and then reforming
seemed to cause the conflict. I don't find this surprising - the
expected situation was probably that division of a single entity
into multiple parts would imply massive trauma (he was blown into
bloody gobbets) which would leave the target nonfunctional - you
wouldn't want your android to keep shooting something that was
obviously dead, and so you would probably put in a "don't shoot at
body parts" line in your code. The android gave the impression
that it was trying to reset - the statement of identity. This
didn't strike me as nearly as big a screw-up as things like the
residual UV line.

>  3) This goes along with the second point.  If this is so many years
>     in the future that we have outposts on distant planets and have
>     contacted and befriended different aliens, our "police" would
>     not have the same semi-automatic or automatic guns we do now.
>     Strapping a flashlight onto the gun doesn't make it a futuristic
>     weapon.  I was willing to overlook this until the guy was boxing
>     up the droid with a hammer and nails.  Don't you think that there
>     would be a more efficient method of fastening wood, at least use
>     a nail gun.
>
Actually, guns as we now know them seem to be pretty good devices
for destruction, war, police actions, and general mayhem - read
sf.science the next time a discussion of beam weapons comes up,
and you'll find that "chemically propelled matter" weapons are
likely to remain the choice for hand-held equipment for a long
time to come.

Similarly, nails work well - they've been around for thousands of
years. And if you're at the end of a long supply line, with budget
cutbacks all around, cartridges for your weapons may well have a
higher priority than cartridges for a nail gun. (I doubt the producers
thought about these points, however - I suspect they just liked the
scene of the Col. closing up the "coffin".)

******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley Roberts

Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.tv:6398 rec.arts.tv:24886 rec.arts.startrek.misc:13276