From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: TERMINATOR II
Date: 24 Jul 92 03:53:07 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <5607@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>From article <64176@hydra.gatech.EDU>, by ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz):
>> guy away!  Why not just walk into the guy's house, and show him, and
>> explain?  That's what they ended up doing anyway!

>Well, she obviously had given up on that already at the time she tried
>to blow the factory up, didnt't she?  It's obvious that nobody heeded
>her warnings between the films, so why should the think it was going
>to be different this time?  It's fairly clear that she preferred
>"direct" solutions to lots of talking.

You have *got* to be kidding!  The reason no one believed her is because
the story is unbelievable.  But now she has proof!  All she has to do is
tell Johnny to tell the 800-series to come with her to Dyson's house, and
cut his arm open.  The proof is there and it's incontravertible!  We know
it is, because it worked.  QED

>> Then there's the fact that she can't accept the Terminator being on
>> their side (not until the very end).  
>> man she's ever loved.  But that's not a reason to hate/distrust the
>> Terminator.  It's a tool.  It does what it's programmed to do.

>How would she know what it's programmed to do?  Because it tells her
>it's her friend?  Even a completely sane person would be very careful
>before choosing to believe the Terminator.  Actually, her
>near-paranoia was one of the most convincing parts of the film.

Gee I don't know.  If it hasn't killed her and John by now, there's a good
chance that he's on their side....  All he needs to do is kill Johnny, and
it's all over.  If he didn't do it, there's probably a reason.

>But how do you know the gun you'be been handed isn't jury-rigged?
>Sure, with a gun that's no problem.  But what do you do with a robot?
>It's *not* just a tool, for crying out loud, it's on a completely
>different scale of complexity.  How does she know he's not a fake, and

I guess, then, that a circular saw isn't a tool, because it's on a completely
different scale of complexity than the wheel, which is one of the first
simple tools.

It's still a tool.  It was designed by someone (something) for a specific
purpose.  That makes it a tool.  Just like the TV set, and the microwave
oven.

>if he is, how should she know they didn't fuck up somewhere during the
>"reprogramming".  How do you expect her to check, let him make a
>coredump of himself and show it to her?

See above.

>> [...]  *Nothing* has changed.  The
>> program can continue, minus one member (OK, so he was the leader.  He's
>> not unreplacable).
>> When you're that close to a breakthrough, you don't just scrap the
>> program.

>They went to quite a lot of trouble to make it clear that HE was close
>to the breakthrough, not the team.  (Note that he was working on it at
>home as well, btw.  Any results of that evening would have been gone
>for good.)

Any results from that evening?  Ohmigod, and just how far could he have
gotten in one evening?  Sure, he could have done a *some*, but the project
is far from over just because the team leader is dead.

And again, this is business.  When you're this close to making the breakthru
that's going to make your company very rich, you send 6 dozen roses to the
funeral and get a replacement.


-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | "You're outmanned, you're outgunned, you're
Georgia Institute of Technology  |      outequipped what else have you got?"
Office of Information Technology | "Guile."
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |      -- Riker and Worf   "Peak Performance"