Conference noted::sf

I liked it even though I don't like gratuitous violence.  Some of the
plot complications caused by the time travel aspects of the story, were,
alas, predictable.

Over all, I'm glad I saw it.

Dave C.

I saw it this weekend. I liked it. It was a little heavy on the violence 
though. I was glad to see that the movie theater I went to strictly 
enforced the R rating. The movie itself reminded me of Alien and Saturn 3.

The Terminator is one bad mother!!


MartyJ

I saw it Friday night, and my reaction is that, for mindless trash, it's
pretty good. In fact, I'd have to say that it was good enough to be
unfortunate that it didn't have better talent and production behind it.
If it did, it could have been a superior action movie.
	There were a few things about it that bothered me, but most were
pecadillos. I couldn't help but notice that, as regards special effects,
they must have shot their wad on the robot animation --- the future scenes
were *awful*, but the robot scenes were *wonderful*.

I can even see the plot hook for a TERMINATOR II...

--- jerry

    	What are the chances for a computer system - such as the defense
    network in the movie - becoming intelligent?  And if so, would it
    really decide to eliminate humanity in favor of its intelligence
    ruling Earth?
    
    	Larry
    

    
    	What you are descibing the Colossus trilogy by D.F. Jones. 
    Also there was a low budget movie entitled 'Colossus - The Forbin
    Project'.  War Games computer (in my opinion) didn't even really
    know that humanity existed, it was just playing a game.
    Colossus/Gardian did recognize humans, but realized that at first
    it needed them, but never planned on eliminating them.
    
    	Another similiar story is 'The Adolesence of P1' which was slightly
    different but a bit more likely.  P1 was a program that got away
    from its designer (where have we heard of this before?) and then
    evolved.
    
    	Be seeing you,
    
    	Klaes
    

re: .4

Pretty close to zero.  If there's one computer system that's going to 
be closely watched and monitored, it's the defense controller.  As 
soon as anything abnormal happens (eg a terminal prints "Where am I?  
Who are all you?")  you switch in the backups and do a core dump.  
A malfunctioning computer is a lot more likely to 
blow up New York than it is to achieve intelligence.
/jlr

    	RE: 153.6-
    
    	WHY would a computer ask such questions as "Where am I?" and
    "Who are you all?"  Does the fact that a computer would even ASK
    such questions denote intelligence.
    	This will probably even further show my obvious lack of knowledge
    about AI, but remember how in the movie Kyle told Sarah Connor that
    the defense computer determined what to do about humanity in a 
    microsecond.  I know this is fiction, but since computers ARE so
    much faster than humans, couldn't one act and react before any 
    humans could do anything about it?  God knows I wouldn't want 
    anything like this to happen, but a little speculation doesn't hurt.
    	I would greatly appreciate an answer to both questions.  Thanks.
      
    	Larry
    
    

    re: .7
    
    If I had the answers to questions like these...
    
    I did a project on this sort of question when I was in college.
    .6's response assumes a mechanism for human intervention, although
    that might not be the case, as in D. F. Jones's *Colossus*, the first in
    a trilogy of novels about a computer like Skynet (the one in *The
    Terminator*).  The theory is if you allow some way for your side
    to stop it, then there is a chance the enemy will figure it out
    and stop it on you.
    
    If you want some good suggestions on what other minds have come
    up with about questions such as this, I refer to you the Appendix
    in *Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid* by Douglas
    Hofstadter.  He gives his answers to some of the most asked questions
    about artificial intelligence, and you don't need to have read the
    rest of the book (a prodigious exercise) to understand them.
           
    On the fiction end of things, my favorite novel in this genre is
    David Gerrold's *When Harlie Was One*.  
    
    As for myuself, I have cocluded that the computers may get as good
    as depicted in *The Terminator*, and if humanity is criminally stupid
    enough toi put management of the planet in the hands of a machine,
    then it deserves whatever it gets.
    
    Dave W.
    

    	Thanks, 153.8.  Since your response is different from .7's,
    I'd still like to hear what he has to say.
    
    	By the way, did anyone ever hear of the short story about these
    scientists who build this supercomputer, and when it was all set,
    they asked it "Is there a God?", and the computer replied, 
    "There is now."
    	Just a little more food for thought.
    
    	Larry
    

    re:.9
    
    Yes, I was just thinking of mentioning this story myself. It's "The
    Answer" by Fredric Brown, one of (if not *the*) best short-short
    story writers in sf.
    
    --- jerry

    .8:
        
>   As for myuself, I have cocluded that the computers may get as good
>   as depicted in *The Terminator*, and if humanity is criminally stupid
>   enough toi put management of the planet in the hands of a machine,
>   then it deserves whatever it gets.
 
        Of course, look where we've gotten so far by being criminally
        stupid enough to put the management of the planet in the
        hands of *people*!  How could a machine (especially an
        intelligent machine) be any worse?
        
        As for catching the newly intelligent machine and shutting
        if off... well, that depends on how quickly it becomes
        intelligent, and how quietly.  If it's smart, it's not going
        to let anyone *know* until it's thoroughly in control of
        its environment.
        
        And if anyone finds out, there could be interesting legal
        complications if someone tries to do so a *second* time (if
        the machine is really self-aware and intelligent, there's
        good reason to consider such a shutdown as "murder").
        
        	/dave

re: surreptious sentience

Look, programs don't run right even when written by supposedly intelligent
people.  How can you expect a program written by no one to achieve 
the miraculous?  Thousands of people have worked on AI for thirty 
years now, and no one has anything like a self-aware program.  For 
such a thing to happen accidentally is like the monkeys on the 
typewriters producing Shakespeare.  It's a lot more likely that such 
accidents would damage some useful function.  We call such things 
bugs, and do our best to quash them.

re: AI murders

Shutting down a computer is not like killing a human being, because 
computers can be restarted from the same point.  In fact, time-sharing 
systems do this constantly.  They stop one process, start up another, 
and then restart the first from where it left off.  Your machine is 
doing this even as you read, and you can hardly tell.  This was used 
to nice effect in C. J. Cherryh's "Voyager in Night", where the 
characters are stopped and started and even meet themselves at 
different stages of execution.  An AI program could not be considered 
truly dead until its last backup copy was erased.  If people had 
backup copies, as they do in Varley's "The Ophiuchi Hotline", then 
murder wouldn't be that serious a crime.

/jlr

    re .12 - see also Varley's "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank", a chilling
    fantasy on possible "vandalism" in such a society.
    
    len.
    

        .12: it's all a matter of your definitions.  Society's
        definitions tend to be more emotional than logical, and I
        doubt the issue of "backups" would ever be considered.
        I'm not sure they *should* be.  I wouldn't much want to be
        killed even if I had a valid backup somewhere, even if it
        was current and I knew it would be restored quickly.  Would
        you?
        
        	/dave

    Re .12:
    
    > Look, programs don't run right even when written by supposedly
    > intelligent people.  How can you expect a program written by no one to
    > achieve the miraculous? 
    
    Who says artificially intelligent programs have to be bug-free?  Do you
    know of any "real" intelligent beings who are bug-free?
    
    > For such a thing to happen accidentally is like the monkeys on the
    > typewriters producing Shakespeare. 
    
    It happened once.
    
    > Shutting down a computer is not like killing a human being, because
    > computers can be restarted from the same point. 
    
    That is not true.  Backups only exist to recover the state of a
    few days or hours in the past.  Even checkpointing systems don't
    usually guarantee retention of the last few minutes or seconds.
    If intelligence arises from an unplanned situation, the conditions
    that led up to the event are not likely to be reproducible from
    normal recordings.  Terminating the intelligence at that point may
    well be murder.                   
    
    
    				-- edp

re: .15

Perhaps I should have been more careful with my terms.  "Backup" 
normally means saving the state of only the disks of a computer.  
It's true that a sudden change in the system might not be reproducible
by restoring the disks from backup.  However, the rest of the state 
of the system (meaning main memory and the internal CPU state)
can also be saved if you want to.  Computers are deliberately 
designed to make all these bits accessible from the outside; it's the 
only way they can be debugged.

People are not so designed.  There's so much data in the brain and 
it's so densely packed using so little energy for storage, that I 
doubt we'll ever be able to read it all from the outside.  It's
like trying to read a VAX's memory with a voltmeter.  You'd have 
to read more than just the brain, too, since some processing is 
distributed through the rest of the body.  Maybe the important stuff could
be dumped out through the spinal cord.  It's not a near-term prospect anyhow.

/jlr

    Re .16:
    
    > However, the rest of the state of the system (meaning main memory and
    > the internal CPU state) can also be saved if you want to.
    
    As a system manager of a development system (and hence one which
    crashes rather frequently), I can attest that it is not generally
    possible to recover the entire state of the system.  If it were, users
    wouldn't complain so much about crashes, because they would only lose
    work during the time the system was down.  In fact, they lose work done
    prior to the time the system went down.
    
    Systems can be designed to minimize the loss, but it's not likely
    that will be done since we are discussing an unexpected condition.
    
    > There's so much data in the brain and it's so densely packed using so
    > little energy for storage, that I doubt we'll ever be able to read it
    > all from the outside. 
    
    Reading individual parts of the brain is not that difficult; stronger
    and more uniform magnets will soon give us the capability to use
    nuclear magnetic resonance tomography to read any part of the brain we
    wish.  The bigger part of the problem will be understanding the
    connections and interpreting the information.  But since that problem
    is not limited in any physical manner, its solution is only a matter
    of time. 

        
    				-- edp 

    Re previous discussion - the notion of partial copies of people
    that can be sent into dangerous situations as proxies (i.e., they're
    "disposable") shows up in Greg Bear's "Eon" (a fabulous novel I
    strongly recommend and which seems to have attracted about zero
    attention).  They're even called "partials".
    
    len.
    

  "...sent into dangerous situations as proxies..." reminds me of one of
  my all-time favorites, "Rogue Moon," by Algis Budrys.  There's this
  alien artifact on the moon, you see.  It allows entry and contains all
  sorts of fascinating things but it *very* unfriendly.  The hero, or
  copies of the hero, gradually explore(s) the deadly maze inside -- each
  new bit of info about the maze is gotten due to the death of a copy
  (e.g., if you make this left turn, you get suddenly dead). 

  Saying more would be a spoiler, but this book is good stuff...

  JP

    	So, would it be possible for our Defense computers to one day
    become so sophisticated as to become intelligent, and would they
    decide to become the new order of intelligence on Earth, as happened
    in "The Terminator"?
    
    	Larry
    

    
    	re: -1
    
    	"There are far greater things in Heaven and Earth, Larry, than
    are dreamt in your philosophy notes file."
    
    Huh? Well...
    
    	The truth is, most of what's done in AI research is just guess
    work.  Much effort is expended simply to make machines mimic what
    we define as `Intelligence'.  We know only one order of intelligence,
    and what we know about that intelligence, compared to what we don't
    know, would fit in a thimble. I don't foresee machines getting smarter
    as a result of human effort. At least not in the near future.
    
    	Accidental intelligence ,however, should not be ruled out as a
    possibility.
    
    ...Mike...
    

    Seems to me there are two approaches possible to develop intelligent
    systems - one "inside out or bottom up" and one "outside in or top
    down".  The "inside out/bottom up" is neurological - we study the
    human nervous system and figure out how the structures we find there
    contribute to intelligent behaviour.  Then we build systems that
    duplicate (at least the functionality of, if not the mechanisms
    of) those structures, and we have an intelligent system.  The "outside
    in/top down" approach corresponds to what we are currently doing
    in AI - we study intelligent behaviour, and try to invent structures
    that will exhibit intelligent behaviour.  I think we have to use
    both approaches (after all, Mother Nature has provided us with a
    "fully worked out example" - the human nervous system - so why ignore
    it; but, it's a very complicated example, and it may not be the
    only way).  What does this say about "accidentally" produced
    intelligence?
    
    Not a whole lot.  But I for one believe that human intelligence
    was an accident, but it was one of those evolved accidents that
    took several billion years of pruning to select out.  There's no
    similar selection process operative (OK, I KNOW somebody's going
    to say there really is - super!) that I can see with respect to
    artificial intelligences, nor is there some randomizing element
    to set up the experiments to select out the results of (e.g., no
    "genetic accidents") so other than pure chance in the face of
    astronomical odds, I don't hold out much chance for spontaneously
    developed intelligence ("Short Circuit" notwithstanding) in artificial
    systems.  It's what the Disney folks used to call "the plausible
    improbable".
    
    len.
     

    	What about the BIOCHIP?  Since human beings are organic computers,
    and still far more advanced than any machine computer, could
    introducing an organic "component" into a computer system create
    intelligence with levels in both storage and comprehension equivalent
    to ours?
    
    	Larry
    

    Unless the component is not just organic but alive, "biochips" don't
    seem any likelier to generate intelligence than "petrochips."  You
    just have to keep the CPU refrigerated to keep it from going rancid.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

Well, CPU and memory density are necessary, (otherwise the speed of 
light gets in the way- messages take too long to get from node to 
node...) and one way to increase density is by using biologically-
generated molecular pathways and nodes. Here we're right on the
life/non-life boundery: DNA can be viewed as molecular ROM or the
evolutionary basis of life, so the ability to create a DNA strand
might be considered either developing a super-dense CPU/ROM or as
"creating life".

I believe that the physical structure of the brain
is well understood, but is simply much too dense to reproduce in
the current technology. (These figures may be wrong, but close:
there are three trillion neurons, each of which is "connected" to
about 170 of its neighbors. The possible interconnections [each
interconnection representing a "gate" in the mushy CPU] excedes
the number of atoms in the universe.) That is what limits the "inside
out" approach- we make a "blank" brain and just turn it loose,
knowing that it will be full of redundancy and non-productive data
and algorithms (just as an infant exhibits redundant and non-productive
behaviors) but there is so much room that productive and useful 
processing will occur, and can be re-inforced in some way to 
become a "thinking", perhaps "alive", entity.

The "spontaneous" intelligence of the science-fiction computer
depends on the above scenario. But, right now, there just isn't
enough density, and large sections of the available density are
always "down", because someone wants to go home, or fix it, or just
vacuum out the cabinet. This sort of thing is not going on in
your head, so you can keep on thinking.

John O.

    I'll bet there are a lot of neurophysiologists, neuropsychologists
    and neurosurgeons out there that wish they could tap this understanding
    of the structure of the brain.  Sorry, the brain is still largely
    a mystery.  We still don't know how memory works.  We still don't
    know what emotion is.  We hardly know anything.  Yeah, at the pop
    science level we know the brain's coarser structure, but that's
    not what I meant.
    
    Anyway, good point about the pasticity of the nervous system and
    the importance of learning to the development of intelligence.
    Numerous experiments (some bordering on cruel) have demonstrated
    that the brain loses its ability to develop certain "skills" if
    it is not exercised the right way at the right time in its development.
    
    len.
    
    

    	How about "hooking up" a human brain to a computer?
    
    	Larry
    

> Sorry, the brain is still largely a mystery.
    
Well, I said the physical structure, not how it works, which is different.
(Someone unfamiliar with how a gas engine works could still, given a good
set of wrenches, disassemble one and determine the physical structure.) I
have to assume we know the brain's structure down to the cellular level,
and maybe the biochemical level. I was also under the impression that the
cellular functioning of "signal switching" using electrochemical means,
and the thresholding of synapses, was pretty well understood. Perhaps not.

Anyway, my poorly-informed opinion is that the functioning of the brain
differs signifigantly between individuals, following only some very vague
guidelines on the macro level- only on the cellular level is it completely
consistent. If we could duplicate the cellular-level functioning of the
brain, in an extremely dense package, we might not have to worry much
about the macro structure- the macro structure (virtual memory) would be
formed by the "learning". But it would have no physical representation
or location, and if two such packages were subject to the same "learning",
the micro process would be the same, but the macro process, and the
final representation, would be much different. In other words, the
packages would have "different points of view", something that the
mushy CPU's I'm familiar with seem to exhibit constantly.

Given the above premise, there's another problem with developing AI
using this method- all the units are different. Very hard to get warranty
service...

This speaks strongly of individuality- even when two individuals agree
on some "fact", their internal structures representing the "fact" are
much different, having different access routes, "different associations".
It may be that the only reason we can communicate at all is that we
live in a somewhat consistent environment, have a somewhat consistent
education, etc. 

John O.

>Given the above premise, there's another problem with developing AI
>using this method- all the units are different. Very hard to get warranty
>service...

  But they're not different.  Suppose I have the guts of the individual in
software, not hardware (which I assume is easy enough to suppose).  All I have
to do is copy that individual from hardware to hardware (body to body).  From
that point onwards, *then* you actually have unique individuals, because
they are immediately accepting different environmental stimuli.  But at the
point of copying, you would have completely identical AI individuals (except
within the confines of the exactness of the hardware they're stored in - one
more disclaimer and I'll be arguing against my own point.) 

John

    	Could it be possible to "hook up" a human brain with a computer?
    
    	Larry
    

    sure; see for example, biofeedback monitors.  Better yet, see the
    computer/toy with the headband (vice joystick) for game control.
    (yes,yes; I realize it was muscle movement doing the actual control,
    but what the heck.)
    
    Dwight

    	Not only as cyborgs, but how about uniting the storage, memory,
    and speed of a human and computer brain to produce the "ultimate"
    computer.
    
    	Larry
    

re: .32
see Frank Herbert's "Destination Void"

>    	Could it be possible to "hook up" a human brain with a computer?
    
It certainly seems so. What the results would be isn't all that easy to guess
in the near term. There have been experiments, reportedly successful, of
computers being "hooked up" already: one that I remember is a direct-
stimulation of the cortex being used to provide a VERY rudimentary "vision"
to a blind person. This was a few years back, so I don't know if there
has been much progress since, or if the experiment was later invalidated,
or what. Getting data directly out of the brain may prove to be more
difficult. The current EEG is roughly equivalent to saying a VAX emits
certain radio frequencies, in terms of understanding what's going on. But
it's quite easy to detect a nerve firing outside the brain- that's what
an EKG is- but single nerves don't give you broadband data transfer.

Connecting current state-of-the-art to a brain has dubious value- Anything
portable wouldn't have enough LIPS/data storage to be worth direct hook-up.
Ordinary sensory channels are fine. An example of this is the failure of
electronic portable translators- a phrase-book has more capacity, is more
reliable, and cheaper. When very high storage densities and fast CPUs are
available, perhaps we will re-examine the possibility of implantable
microprocessors with direct-stimulation output, god-knows-what input.
There's a lot of side issues, such as infection, rejection, danger of
hemorrhage, power supply problems, heat dissipation, etc. It's one thing
to face this in order to stay alive (implantable mechanical heart), but
just to know fluent French?

On the other hand, if the "computer" is actually a direct life-support
system for the dis-embodied (literally!) brain/brainstem, then you have
(possible) life-preservation and indefinite life-prolongation. Certainly
there are people who can see the advantages there. It would be pointless,
and probably intensely cruel, to keep a brain alive without providing
an adequate input/output function. But what's an "adequate" I/O here?
In "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank", Varley suggests that just some human
contact (verbal) is enough.

Tom Rainbow, unfortunately killed in an accident recently, provided some
insights into both the difficulty and promise of some of these ideas
in a series of articles appearing in Analog. While my ramblings are based
on only rudimentary knowledge of the subject, his aren't: he was a
neurophysicist. His articles are also very witty and easy reading, the
kind I like.

John O.

    Along the lines of direct stimulation of the visual cortex, there
    are now several deaf people going around with cochlear implants.
    These are devices implanted in the cochlea that directly stimulate
    the auditory nerve.  They receive input from a microphone that looks
    like a hearing aid and passes the data to the implant by magnetic
    induction (so there are not wires passing though the skin).  It
    produces very crude sound signals, but it's a heck of a lot better
    than unaided lip-reading.  Or so the owners say.  With enhanced
    enunciation.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re .35:
    
    The first of the experiments that led to these "artificial ears"
    was done at the University of Utah using a PDP-8/E quite a few years
    ago.  So who's to say Digital hasn't been on the "leading edge"?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    	Is there any chance you could print up some of Tom Rainbow's
    articles in NOTES?
    
    	Larry
    

RE: .30

>    	Could it be possible to "hook up" a human brain with a computer?

  Sure, just jam an RS232 port in there, and you're all set.  :-)

  Seriously, it all depends on what you want to do.  The preceding notes
have pointed out ways of using electronic devices to get information to
the brain, but they're only using the existing 'input ports' to the brain.
What you might call standard interfaces.  I assume you want more, along
the lines of a concept Jerry Pournelle often talks about (don't know who
originated it) of being able to talk directly to a computer just by thinking
about the request, and instantly you have the memory and mental powers of
a computer.  Yes?

  Then I'd say forget it.  Unless we figure out how to decipher all the myriad
ways in which *each person's* memories and experiences are interlinked.  It's
akin to the problem of reading a John Q. Public format database.  If you only
use one program to read it, and it assumes one format, you're going to get
garbage out.  You'd have to customize each person's interface.  The only way it
could be done is if there's a thingamawhatsitz that can take a download of your
brain's contents and figure out how things are linked.  Then it would have to
create the brain-computer interface and dynamically adjust whenever your brain
internally reconnects its memories in some new and interesting way (e.g.
a traumatic moment in your life would definitely cause some reordering of
your brain's makeup).

John

RE: .38

>                                            I assume you want more, along
>the lines of a concept Jerry Pournelle often talks about (don't know who
>originated it) of being able to talk directly to a computer just by thinking
>about the request, and instantly you have the memory and mental powers of
>a computer.  Yes?

The first story I read which concerned this topic directly was "No Truce With
Kings", by Poul Anderson.  I don't remember where it was originally published,
but I read it in his "Seven Conquests" collection.

There was a fairly good description of how the person felt when he was hooked
up to the computer.  Needless to say, he liked it.  He began to drift away
from us mere mortals in his viewpoint.

-- Ken Moreau

Re: 153.37

>    	Is there any chance you could print up some of Tom Rainbow's
>    articles in NOTES?
    
Would like to oblige, but I'm a poor and slow typist (speaking of narrow-
band interfaces...), and I can't think of any other way to (ready for this?)
digitize my Analog. (Sorry!)

However, I'll be happy to office-mail them to you. If more people want
to see them, I'll reconsider putting in a note.

John O.

re .38, .39

Poul Anderson did another story that involved human/computer hookups. It
is called _The Avatar_. Not a bad story.

P.

    Re .38:
    
    > Then I'd say forget it.  Unless we figure out how to decipher all the
    > myriad ways in which *each person's* memories and experiences are
    > interlinked. 
    
    Who says we have to do all the work?  The brain is pretty smart;
    maybe we can find some interface we can put in and let the brain
    work out on its own the proper way to use it.
    
    
    				-- edp

    	Wouldn't it be frightening if we produced a computer as intricate
    and functional as the human brain, and then discovered that it could
    not operate any faster than our human brains because it is so much
    like ours?!
    
    	Larry
    

    I don't see why it would frightening at all.  Maybe disappointing
    or puzzling, but not frightening.
    
    Actually, it might not even be puzzling, depending on the computer's
    architecture.  The synapses of the human brain have a very slow
    switching time by electronic standards, but we have a heck of a
    lot of synapses.  A computer might have pico-second switching time
    but, if it had a much smaller number of switches, it might not have
    any more operations per second than we do, hence a similar "speed
    of thinking."
    
    Now, if the AI computer had architecture as massively parallel as
    our own, with a comparable number of switches, then I'd expect it
    to have a much faster speed of thought.  If it had a human psychology,
    it might find us very boring unless it could adjust its clock rate.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

  An intelligent computer probably *would* have to drop it's clock down
in speed.  It would probably be very slow when speaking to someone so that
the words came out at a reasonable rate, but when thinking or making decisions,
it would be blindingly fast.  This introduces all sorts of psychological
effects.  Suppose your mind worked at 100 times it's current rate.  How
would you perceive society.

  RE: Having the brain work the computer hookups

  Sure, it could work that way, but that seems like it would be dangerous
as the hookups would probably evolve through trial and error.  Not
understanding the brain and then stuffing information into it seems kinda
nasty.  No thanks.

    If my mind functioned at 100 times its current rate, I'd do what
    computers do -- timeshare. :-)
    
    In David Gerrold's When Harlie Was One, that's exactly what HARLIE
    does.  While he's spying on his enemies, writing letters to spinster
    librarians, and discovering the unified field theory, he's also
    talking to his psychologist(?).
    
    Dave W.

re: the mind is faster than the hand

Actually, I often find that my thoughts run ahead of what I can say 
or type.  The brain is already faster than its natural I/O channels.
One good use for a computer/brain hookup might be to provide a 
channel with a higher output bandwidth than the main existing channels:
the vocal tract and the hands.  The speeds of these might be limited 
by mechanics (a finger muscle can only contract so fast with so much 
precision) rather than the nervous system.  If one tapped into the 
nerves directly, substantial increases in speed might be possible.
There's a lot of mights there, and I don't know much about neurology.
Anyhow, it seems better to use the natural channels than to tap into 
the brain directly.  As was already pointed out, the organization of 
the processing in the brain probably varies from individual to 
individual, and maybe even from time to time.

/jlr

  Just some more thoughts on the brain's ability to 'output' faster than
the body can do something about the outputs...  Remember that the brain
understands esoteric topics like love, non-3-dimensional concepts and such
like.  Many times the inability to express that is just because the brain's
knowledge of 'love' have been activated, and 'there just aren't words to
express it'.  This can be extended to, say, when thinking about any type
of design.  When I'm designing a software system, I don't even try to write
anything down.  My mind is my sketchpad, and I just juggle as many concepts
as I have to before trying to write anything down.  How many times have
you ended up having a marvelous idea only to 'lose something in translation'
when writing it down?

John

P.S.  I believe that the organization of the brain is, in fact, never constant,
but is constantly shifting (not dramatically, but still shifting).

    We're already using some transducers that nature didn't give us,
    for instance, what is more UNnatural to do than touch-type?  Heck,
    word-making-commands are supposed to go to the mouth and larynx,
    but all of you touch-typers out there actually have trained a second
    set of neural pathways to the fingers which are almost as
    natural-feeling as throat control pathways.  Do you *think* about
    what key you're about to press or do you just do it? ( I believe
    there is scientific evidence that in fact your touch-typing ability
    is mediated in the same fashion as your ability to speak).
    	
    Does your left foot push on the nonexistent clutch when you drive
    an automatic?  Clutches didn't exist in the jungle.  Do you turn
    the light on in a room even though there's a power failure?
    	
    ...and of late, (since becoming adept at a VAXstation) I've started
    to have this twitch in my mouse hand whenever I switch conversations
    among two or three that happen to be going on.... :-) 
    
    
    By the way, there's a mostly-experimental surgical prosthesis that
    allows persons with severed spinal cords to control their leg muscles
    sufficiently well to ride an adult tricycle (like delivery boys
    ride).  I believe it uses a PDP-11 to do the signal processing...
    
    

    I hope this hasn't mentioned before but here goes.
    The terminator was a good movie except for one fact. It is possible
    to beleive that time travel is possible as depicted but the story
    falls down when the man from the future  becomes the father of the
    the savior of the future. If that hadn't happened then the story
    line would fit. 
    The facts are 
    1)The terminator was sent back to kill the mother of their enemy
    in the future.
    2)The man from the future went back to save sarrah because the
    terminator was sent to kill her.
    3)He becomes the father of the savior of the human race.
    
    The impossible paradox is that in order for the savior of the humnan
    race to have been born to cause the problem, the human from the
    future would have had to come back to the past previous to the time
    we see him. Since the only reason the future man returned was to
    follow the terminator, if the terminaor hadn't gone back he wouldn't
    have been in the past to father the savior.
    Thus the terminaotors return is responsible for the saviors birth
    but since the savior was around before the terminator was sent back,
    how did he get there in the first place.
    Thus the terminators return is responsible for the creation of the
    problem that was the cause of its return in the first place.
    
    If you follow this then theoretically, if the terminator hadn't
    been sent back, the savior wouldn't have been born and there would
    have been no reason to send the terminator back in the first place.
    They could have solved the conflict in the story by not having the
    man from the future become the father of the savior.
    Of course it is possible that the man from the future isn't the
    father but the impression you are left with is that he is. 

    	The idea is that there must have been an "original" father (one
    from the 1980's), and that the result of the battle between the
    Termnator and Kyle - with Kyle now becoming the father - cancelled
    out the original creation of the saviour, John Connor.  Such things
    in SF time-travel stories are like "infinite loops".
    
    	A similar event occured with the Terminator's presence in 1984
    (this is from the novelization of the movie - it's very good); when
    rescue/cleanup people were assessing the results of Sarah Connor's
    final battle with the Terminator - where she crushed the android
    in a huge press - two of the team discovered some of the Terminator's
    microchips, which of course had a design several decades beyond
    present technology (obviously, they did not know what to make of
    the wreckage which was the Terminator's remains).  Realizing they
    had a windfall on their hands, they patented the chip design and
    went into their own computer company - which later became the company
    which the Department of Defense used to build their new Defense
    computers with (Skynet), which later became intelligent and decided
    to wipe out mankind in favor of themselves becoming the new order
    of intelligence....
                       
    	Larry
    

I didn't follow what you said, but I don't agree with your conclusion... that if
the Terminator had not been sent back, that the savior would not have been
born...

It's kind of an infinite loop, but it does have a begining, but once it starts
looping, it's stuck in that loop.  Sounds like some programs that I know... 

You might try thinking of the time travel paradox loop from the standpoint of
everything except the present is fixed; both the past and the future are
invarient; the only way to change the past or the future is to change the
present.  See what that gets you...

Jim. 

    	I would think it would be apparent that it didn't really matter
    whether or not Kyle and the Terminator went back to 1984 - there 
    had to have been an "original" father to begin with, so Kyle's 
    going back in time only changed the destiny of who the father was, 
    NOT the destiny of whether the saviour was going to be born or not.
                   
    	Larry
    

    I don't know that we need suppose an "original" father of John Connor,
    supplanted by the time-traveler, or an "original" inventor of the
    futuristic chips, supplanted by the Terminator's remains.  It can
    have always been the case that John Connor was descended from the
    time-traveler and the chip designs descended from themselves.
    
    Or if there is a reason against this situation, it isn't that the
    situation is self-contradictory.  A self-contradiction was what
    the robots were trying for -- They wanted John Connor to have never
    been.  If they had succeeded in preventing his birth, they would
    never have had knowledge of him or motive for wanting to prevent
    him.  So then they would NOT prevent him.  They wind up both preventing
    him and not preventing him, knowing of him and not knowing of him.
    
    Are you sure you WANT to copy logic chips like those?
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    	Now I know why that naval officer in THE FINAL COUNTDOWN said
    "This stuff could drive you crazy just thinking about it" in regards
    to their own time-travel experience.  :^)
    
    	Larry
    

    The original father of john connors had to be the man from the future.
    The link is the picture of sarrah connors that he is givin by john
    connors. If he wasn't the father, what are the chances of the same
    picture being taken if sarrah hadn't been involved with both the
    terminator and the future man (sorry but I can't remember his name).
    If the first john connors had a different father that the one conceived
    by the man from the future than what happens to the original since
    his conception isn't possible. He thus can't exist in the future
    anymore and would be replaced by the son of the future man and sarrah
    instead of the "original father. You are also pressuming that both
    john connors you speak of would act the same way even though the
    are totaly different people. 
    

    Well I for one think a tight loop like this is pretty neat.
    Like a whirlpool in the time stream.
    
    Postulating an "original father" to generate the loop is unnecessary.
    
    Discussing time like this is like flatlanders discussing spheres.
    We do not have the proper vocabulary.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
                    

    	That's what I said before - who the father is/was doesn't matter;
    it's the fact that humanity's future saviour (John Connor) WAS
    born to do his destiny that does count.

        The "second" saviour had to be from Kyle Reese (the soldier from 
    2029) because of the existence of the photograph, but it does NOT 
    eliminate the fact that there HAD to have been an original father from 
    the 1980's - whether his role and son were the final saviour or not is 
    not the main issue - the main point is that there WAS an original
    father of the saviour.
    
    	Larry
           

    
       I suppose this topic really should move to a "time travel" topic,
    but I personally see the whole time-travel "paradox" in the following
    fashion:
    
       Instead of looking at the space-time continuum at a series of
    3-d snapshots, inevitably moving towards a "maximum time" (perhaps
    accelerating??), view it as what the name suggests - a continuum.
    The future cannot exist without the past, but simultaneously the
    past cannot exist without the future.
    
       The way I try to impress this idea is that instead of thinking
    of an object's location as a function of time, perhaps you should
    look at an object's location of time and two other co-ordinates
    (x,y for instance) as a function of z perhaps.  The point is that
    causality DOES exist, but still, someone from the future cannot
    change the past, nomatter what he does!  Look what happened to the
    terminator.  He tried to change the past.  However, for all the
    stir he created, all he really did was foster the inner courage
    of Sarah Connor, and cause her and Kyle Reese to get together in
    the "first" place.
    
       For a reasonable exploration of the subject, I'd recommend James
    Hogan's "Proteus Operation" which uses this basic theme, with a
    "multiverse splitting" allowance - Larry Niven also wrote a story
    or two (I'm pretty sure it was L.N...) where every possible outcome
    of the uncertainty principle was a seperate universe (Keith Laumer
    wrote a book about this also, although my mind is foggy and I can't
    remember names.)
    
    					-mjg
    

    
    Reading the novelization, it seems obvious that John Connor thinks
    Kyle Reese is his father.  I don't see where this second father
    business shows up at all.
    
    DFW

    Re  .50:  In many cases it seems to me that time travel stories lead 
    to a loop or vortex image but in this particular case I  believe  we 
    simply  do  not  have  a  paradox:  the  key  to that being that the 
    terminator FAILED to kill the mother of the  saviour  of  the  race. 
    Hence the "sequence" of events is
    
    1) saviour is born
    
    2) terminator sent back to kill mother of saviour before child  born 
    and   father  of  saviour  follows  terminator  into  past  to  stop 
    terminator
    
    3) terminator fails
    
    4) saviour born as required by future history.
    
    It may be a loop but I don't believe it contains a paradox...
    
    /. Ian .\

    The paradox is not in the loop itself.  The loop is stable as a
    dynamic entity.  The paradox, I believe, lies in how the loop starts.
    One way to look at time (from some book or other :^) ) is to view
    it from outside the timestream.  This means you can see all events
    as they occured from the beginning of time (whatever that is) to
    the end (see last interjection).  Suppose our observer looks upon
    this stream and sees the events in this order.  Terminator appears
    in 1984.  Mr. X (savior's father, but not yet) shows up next.
    Terminator tries to kill Sarah Conner.  Sarah and Mr. X waste the
    Terminator.  Mr. X dies soon after.  Then, Sarah has a baby boy,
    who grows up and meets Mr. X as a younger man.  Baby Conner fights
    for the human race and Mr. X goes back in time to follow a terminator.
    
    There is nothing inherently wrong or paradoxical about this.  Its
    only if you follow time from the beginning to end that you see a
    paradox.   There is no clear cause for the effect.  What started
    the loop? 
    
    A theory I like (for no logical reason, but it sounds neat) is that
    we start out with a nice logical timestream that is uncluttered
    by time travel.  Then, somewhere, somewhen, a person decides to
    travel back in time and do something that would seem to cause a
    paradox.  This causes stress on the timestream which must be relieved.
    Events (history) shifts and changes so the paradox is relieved.
    In the case of a man who kills his grandfather, perhaps grandma
    marries someone else, has different babies, and the man isnt born.
    The change propagates for a while, perhaps to the end, but the paradox
    is relieved.   Perhaps though, the disturbance to the timestream
    is best corrected in such a way that time settles into a loop such
    as the one mentioned above.  There is no logical explanation for
    how the loop started because the event that caused its existence
    NEVER HAPPENED, BUT WAS ERASED FROM HISTORY DUE TO PARADOX.  The
    loop is dynamically stable, and closed-ended, therefore neat, but
    there is no clue left as to what caused the loop to start in the
    first place. 
    
    I know this must be a very confused stray thought as it was written
    off the cuff, but for those who can decipher it, what do you think?
    
    /Dan

    I just recalled a book that has a similar problem.  I hope I didnt
    steal too much of the idea from the story but if I did, I stand
    humbled.  Anyway, who's read the Stainless Steel Rat adventure that
    involved Time travel.  I think that one discussed time-loops being
    created, although I dont think the justification for their creation
    was the same.
    
    /Dan

I prefer the "multi-threaded" theory of time.  In this case, the 
Original Father and Sarrah are the parents of John Conner in one 
time-line.  In this time-line, the Terminator is sent back, and Kyle Reese 
is also, but with a different picture than the one we saw.

The other time-line splits off at the point where the Terminator shows 
up.  Kyle Reese shows up too, and changes the primary time-line.  He 
ends up becoming John Conner's father.  Since this is a different John 
Conner, and the picture is different (as are many other less obvious 
events/facts), the new Kyle Reese that is sent back spawns yet a third 
time-line.

This leaves us with three line:
1) Sarrah and original husband have kid, no interference from future.
2) Sarrah meets Kyle, who becomes new father, but the John Conner he 
   remembered was the one from Timeline #1. (Someone else's son)
3) Sarrah again meets Kyle, but the John Conner Kyle knew before was his son.

Note that all three would have "futures" that are separate.  The picture 
would look something like:

                |
                |
                |   +-->+   +-->+
                |   !   |   !   |
                |   !   |   !   |
               [1]  !  [2]  !  [3]
                |   !   |   !   |
                |   !   |   !   |
                +-->+   +-->+   |
                |       |       |
                V	V	V

Obviously, the movie started at the beginning of Timeline#3.

Perhaps, as someone suggested earlier, time is single-threaded, but can
be changed, re-stabilizing whenever changes distrub it.  In that case,
the "final" single timeline would be number three.  Since John Conner's
life may have had the same effect regardless of his parentage [Anyone
want to argue "nature vs. nurture"?], then the differences between the
three futures might be trivial enough that they reconverge. 
_______
Richard

    Re .50 et. al.:  Looks like now would be a good time to stop & re-read
    RAH's "...All You Zombies."
    
    					Don

    
       Well, if you look at the continuum-splitting theory, then there's
    all kinds of things which can explain what happened.  However, I
    would think that Sky-Net's processing-intelligence would have realized
    that such a multiverse exists, and thus anything it does is pointless
    - it doesn't change its own time-line, no matter how you look at
    it.
    
       The thing I don't like about the splitting approach to the subject
    is that if you really grok it (in the true meaning of grok), then
    it's a good basis for a story like L.N.'s where the people who realized
    that no matter what they do, there's one of them that does something
    different.  Thus -- worse than the possible depression and feelings
    of hopelessness which can result from really comprehending the concept
    of "pre-destiny" -- people suddenly start looking around and saying
    "What the ____!" and chaos can result.  Pretty scary.  Why not start
    a nuclear war?  Someone else won't.  Why not kill that person, another
    one of yourself doesn't.  (A theological aside for those who believe
    in hell or heaven -- they must be really crowded, and the same people
    must be in each "destination," in roughly equivalent proportions!)
    
    						-mjg
    

    Re .58:
    
    > . . . there HAD to have been an original father from the 1980's . . . 
    
    Says who?  We have no definitive theory of the nature of time.  Perhaps
    time was "created" with the loop already in place.
    
    
    				-- edp 

	This is just a snippet from someone who has neither seen nor read
	anything to do with the Terminator .....

	I seem to have seen somewhere and I am paraphrasing ...

	'We all sow the seeds of our own destruction...'

	From what I have read here, the Terminator seems to have done
	this fairly effectively ...

	CJA

    Well, I just saw "the Terminator" last night and I thought it was
    very rivetting.  
    
    I also wondered about the timeline consequences with respect to
    causality, but that has already been discussed.  
    
    One other question I had was power source.  Uopn losing its "skin",
    the terminator could be seen to be very compact in volume, especially
    in comparison to Arnold.  What did it use for power, only forty
    years from now?  By most accounts, fusion will take 20 or thirty
    years for building sized reactors and batteries, while getting more
    energy dense, are still bulky.
    
    The terminator seemed like an expendable munition for a short term
    terrorist-type operation, not something that could follow you for 
    days.
    
    Any other thoughts?
    
    Tony

    	The novelization of THE TERMINATOR is an excellent source for
    questions like that.
    
    	The nuclear power source for the Terminator is located in its
    chest area behind three wraparound layers of very tough armor. 
    The Terminator could run at 100 percent 24 hours a day nonstop for over
    three years before shutting down, and it was only using 40 percent of 
    its power to hunt for Sarah.  Once it had killed her, it would wander 
    programless until its computer creator/masters were built and had
    begun to take over Earth, and then report to them for new programming.
                  
    	Larry
    

    OK, I accept that the novel stated the terminator could run at 100%
    for three years, I was wondering about the logic of that.
    
    What form of nuclear power could provide the energy required at
    the energy density you state.  Also, from the scene in the movie
    where the terminator attacked the human hideout, it appeared that
    the mterminators were designed as expendable munitions.  Send one
    to find and exterminate a human encapment, but once it does, it
    attacks and is presumeably either damaged in the attack, which would
    require repair and enable refueling or it is destroyed.
    
    I see no logic in a three year power supply, I also see no technology
    or extrapolation of technology that could enable it.  
    
    Tony

    	Why couldn't Terminators be designed to endure/handle search
    and destroy missions of varying length and battle intensity?
    
    	Larry
    

    
    There is also another problem with .71 -
    
    The terminators were made by cyberdine systems right?? or to be
    more accurate, they were made by machines in automated factories.
    
    Do you really think that the control program for an automated factory
    (read as the equivalant of human manager/owner) knows or care about
    cost and economics??
    
    And how many terminators can you build out of one Hunter/Killer
    unit?? (remember in reeses first flash back, the big tracked thing
    that him and his partner blew up with the "grenades"??  Terminators
    looked to be tougher to spot and kill than those huge things...:-)
    
    And while the machines had the HKs to patrol the surface, they still
    needed something to root out the humans hidey holes.
    
    And who is to say that the terminator in the flash back was fresh??
    It could have been out there killing humans for many months or years
    before the damage became so great that someone was able to kill
    it.
    
    this is with out reading the book - I have the feeling that if The
    Terminator had been succesful in taking out Sarah Connors, it would
    have just started killing humans until it ran out of juice or was
    stopped...look how easy it was for it to take out the police station...
    
    grins,
    
    clark.

    re: terminator power

    It might not actually take all that much energy to run a
    terminator. Human beings take about 100 W, and the terminator
    didn't seem that much faster than a human.  They were stronger,
    but that just means their peak power output was higher. Their
    quiescent state might not take much at all. 
    
    The latest issue of Spectrum has an article on batteries.  The
    best today are zinc-air batteries with an energy density of 310
    watt-hours/kg or 1150 Watt-hours / liter.  If you could fit a
    ten-liter battery into Arnie's chest, and if he only burned 100W,
    then he could run for about four days.   That may not sound like long,
    but that's longer than the required maintenance period for, say,
    jet fighters.
    
    /jlr

    Actually I thought that the terminator's were a desperation move
    by skynet.  Obviously, skynet lost the war and I was under the 
    impression that terminators came after the HK units first appeared.
    To hear Reese talk it seemed that they were relatively successful
    against terminators.
    
    The arguement that they were worried about cost and made them to
    survive assumes that one side of the quality vs quantity is right.
    It is possible that a desperate skynet would make large numbers
    of relatively cheap terminators, in an attempt to recover victory.
    The desperation of skynet is plainly pointed out by the fact they
    worked out a means of time travel to try and steal victory by 
    eliminating its chief adversary.
    
    The extent to which skynet tried to make terminators appear human
    is, I think, clear evidence that, without intense camoflauge (sp),
    Reese and his other fighters would simply waste terminators. 
    
    I think the combination of camoflauge, skynet desperation and late
    appearance of terminators makes me believe that they are expendible
    weapons
    
    The use of batteries is an interesting possibility.  Improvements
    in both mechanics and batteries will make a battery powered terminator
    possible.  Does anyone know how much energy a robot (like one of
    those used to make cars) uses?  To a first approximation a terminator
    should use 4X as much - four limbs.  
    
    The four day figure seems about what I would have guessed for the
    action period of a terminator (1 week to one month) was my guess
    during the movie.  If Reese knew this, a simple strategy of flight,
    travel to europe for example, would have been quite effective. 
    I believe that in any case a flight strategy would have been successful
    as the terminator woould have to find out where she was.
    
    Also, the terminator wasn't that smart.  He appeared to be very
    confused by the motion in the factory.
    
    Tony 

    	RE: .75  
    
    	In the parking garage, after Sarah bit Reese on the hand, he
    	gave her a more graphic description of the Terminator's level
    	of commitment to his task (ending with, "It absolutely WILL
    	NOT STOP -- EVER!! -- until you are dead!")
    
    	If the Terminator was in danger of running out of juice in
    	the 1980's, Reese didn't appear to know about it.
    
    	Also, I agree that the humans most likely had no problem knocking
    	off the Terminators in their native time.  (Reese told Sarah that
    	the first Terminators had rubber skin and were easy to spot.
    	As a result, later models were built with living tissue.  Obvious-
	ly, the humans were killing them, if Skynet had to redesign
    	them with better camouflage.)
    
    	When Sarah asked Reese if he could stop the Terminator, he
    	replied, "I don't know.  With these weapons...  I don't know."
    	(It appeared that the major difficulty with killing the Terminator
	in the 1980's was the lack of sufficient weapons technology.)

    	NO, the time machine built by Skynet (nicely called the
    chronoporter in the novelization) was NOT a "desperate attempt"
    by Skynet to stop John Connor and his army.  The device was something
    the machines had developed in their *general* non-stop research
    projects on all areas of science.  It WAS used as a last attempt
    to stop John Connor when all else was lost, but that was NOT its
    original purpose.
    
    	And the Terminator which was sent back to 1984 was a *specially*
    designed Terminator, with special programming to interact to a certain
    extent in pre-World War III human society so that it could accomplish
    its mission while attracting the least attention.  That is why it
    used a grubby hotel room as a base, and did not just come to 1984
    and start hunting Sarah Connor without dressing as a human being
    and picking up certain human characteristics.  It was also designed
    to be VERY tough, much moreso than normal Terminators.
    
    	If Reese could have brought back a plasma laser rifle like he
    and his army used in 2029, he could have penetrated Terminator's
    armor; but our "primitive" weapons were no match for that armor.
                                                                    
    	Larry
    

    Re:77
    
    When one is losing a war, no make that fighting a war, one does
    not do "*gereral*" research.  War is desperate, by its definition
    and one clear lesson is that one plays to win or does not play at
    all.  A logical war fighting power would only perform research that
    could help win the war, until the war was won.
    
    Also, I think it was kinda hokey that skynet could transport a machine,
    a terminator, and either side couldn't transport weapons, which
    are also machines.
    
    How was arnold designed meaner?  The terminator in the tunnel looked
    just as mean.  And arnold acted dumb.
    
    Tony

    	The Skynet machines WERE doing "general research", and the
    chronoporter was one of those projects; it was stated in the book.  
    You can fight it out with the author of the novel if you want, but I 
    am just stating what I read.  You could not just "whip up" such a 
    sophisticated instrument as a time machine as a last, desperate act.  
    Such a device requires time to build and develop, which the machines 
    did.

        And let me add that it was Skynet which STARTED the war, in 
   order to exterminate humanity, thus making the machines the offensive 
   and the human race the defensive.  The humans were much more desperate 
   to win this war than the machines, as they would be totally wiped 
   out if they did not.  Ironically, even if (when/will be?) the humans 
   defeated Skynet, machines will not go out of existence entirely, 
   though they will probably never be made intelligent again; plus the
   humans needed and used machines (guns, radios) even during the war.
    
        Computers are capable of doing MANY tasks at once, much more than 
    a human could, and I would think an intelligent supercomputer like 
    Skynet would be extremely efficient at the task.  Also keep in mind 
    that the machines could pour as many resources as they wish into as 
    many areas as possible, as they do not have to worry about economics 
    or human emotions/psychological factors in their decisions and plans.

        It was clearly stated during Reese's interrogation by the 
   police that the Terminator went through the chronoporter due to 
   the fact it was covered with LIVING human tissue.  Unless the 
   weapons were covered with similar tissue, such inorganic material 
   would not make it through.  That is why neither party had any 
   clothes on, either.
    
        And how was the Terminator played by Arnold S. "dumb"?  He was
    portraying a battle android which only had to know enough about
    human society in 1984 to get around to kill Sarah, plus the usual
    technological design limitations set by the time period (He was not
    a C-3PO built in an age of hyperdrive starships and such).	
                                    
    	Larry
    

    
    Tony - 
    skynet was able to send the terminator back because it was covered
    in living tissue (how did it keep the tissue alive??) and therefore
    could be sent through (kinda thin in the light of day, but at least
    consistent.
    
    In order for reese to bring back a weapon it too would have to have
    been encased in living tissue.  And since it would appear that they
    could only send back one person, it would have been very
    painful/anatomicaly impossible to encase the weapon in reese :-)
    
    As far as the terminator being stupid - remember, It was nothing
    more than a highly programmed robbot, there was no evidence that
    the terminators themselves were AI's, just a very well/thouroughly
    programmed robot with a large internal database (highly inclusive,
    slightly shallow, Arnold only had *SEVEN* lines in the entire movie...)
    and two directives - find and kill sarah connor, survive as long
    as possible (assumed).  Calling the terminator stupid for not being
    able to think is like calling you calculator useless becuase it
    isn't a dbms...
    
    Grins,
    
    clark.

    
    Another nasty thought - what if sarah had had an unlisted phone
    number...
    
    grins,
    
    Clark.

    
    Seeing as the Terminator was specially built for this time, it
    could have been designed with a recharging circut--"And at the
    end of the day, just plug him into the wall..."

<    Seeing as the Terminator was specially built for this time, it
<    could have been designed with a recharging circut--"And at the
<    end of the day, just plug him into the wall..."

You mean just like "The Electric Grandma".

Dave

>< Note 153.80 by CSMSRE::WRIGHT "Underneath the Radar" >
>                    -< The few, The proud, The Machines... >-
    
 
    That is one of the cleverest notes titles I've seen in a while.
    My compliments.
    
    					andrew

    
    re: .84
    
    Then you'd probably like my "Seasons Greetings from Cyberdyne Systems"
    Christmas card, with a picture of an 800 series on it.
    
    DFW

    	In the scene when Reese first arrived in 1984 and was being
    chased by the Los Angeles police, when he caught one of the cops
    and demanded at gunpoint what the date was, the cop rattled off
    that it was "Twelfth - May - Thursday"; but May 12, 1984 was on
    a *Saturday*, not Thursday.  Someone should have checked the calendar.
    
    	I bet you can all sleep soundly now.
    
    	:^)
    

    I should have caught that, seeing as my birthday is May 12!  Maybe
    I did and just forgot to mention it?  I forget.
    
    Wook

    
    I know the talk about AI was 40 or 50 replies back, but (if you
    didn't know already) there is an AI notesfile -- ISTG::AI.  You
    might want to check it out.
    					Speedo
    

Who wrote the novelization of the terminator?

    Can't recall off-hand. I'll have to check.
    
    --- jerry

    
    Bill Pronzini and someone else whose first name, I think, is Randall.
    
    (isn't that helpful)
    
    DFW

    re:.91
    
    Well, Dave, you got 50%, but not the 50% you thought (you got both
    first names right :-)). The authors were Randal Frakes and Bill
    Wilsher. Apparently, there was a different novelization by a
    different author released in the UK, but I don't have any details
    on that one.
    
    --- jerry

    I heard the review for the new "Terminator II" from Siskel and Ebert. 
    They both loved it and said it was a great movie, better than the first
    one.  They say its a must see.  Excellent story, acting, special
    effects and everything.
    
    This time around Schwarzenegger plays the good guy.  But they say the
    bad guy is much better this time around.  Someone else gets to play the
    bad guy.

    
       I'm really tired of all the pre-movie details being released.  I
    thought they told too much months ago with the first advertisements. 
    The details shown in current ads and in "behind the scenes" looks on
    the movie shows like Flix on VH1 and such are really pissing me off,
    because at first I start watching because the movie looks great, but
    then I realize that they're giving away some details that I'd much
    rather see at the theatre...
    
    					-mjg
    

    I agree completely!
    
    When we went to see the Rockteer, all the previews we'd been blasting
    with almost spoiled the flick.  We kept expecting things to happen one
    way because of the previews, then they'd go the other.. or there was no
    suspense because we'd seen the previews.  I try to turn those things
    off now, but you can't always be quick enough with the remote.
    

    Well, I hadn't seen any previews (don't watch much TV), but I liked
    Terminator I, so I dragged the wife off to Terminator II last night,
    and it was a _GREAT!_ movie.  It's got SF, it's got action, it's got
    Arnold, it's got humor, it's got an unresolved time-travel paradox,
    it's got more ILM special effects than I've seen in one movie, we loved
    it!
    
    Willie

The only thing I saw about this on TV was the Siskel and Ebert review so it
wasnt spoiled for me.  They gave it a good review so I decided to see this. I
have to admit I was impressed.  I saw the original Terminator and wasnt really
all that impressed.  I have to admit that it was the only Schwarzenegger film
that I really liked.  He fits the Terminator part so well.  I was a bit turned
off by the violence and gore but it was better than the average slash and kill
type movie.  The Siskel and Ebert review was right.  It was a welldone movie.
The special effects alone was worth the price of admission.  I especially liked
the part where the kid tells the Terminator not to kill anyone.

> I especially liked the part where...

Please cushion statements like these with spoiler warnings so as not to ruin
it for those of us who haven't seen the movie yet.

John Piekos

    
       Good movie.  I'm glad I finally saw it last night so I can stop
    frantically looking for the remote to change channels when commercials
    and reviews start to reveal too much.
    
       I don't know how much they've been talking about, but if you've seen
    the reviews and such, don't worry too much, most of the things that I
    knew about were resolved in the first half hour of the movie perhaps. 
    (Although that first half hour would have been a lot better were it not
    for the spoiler commercials.)
    
       And I hope you didn't catch Linda Hamilton on Arsenio(sp?) last
    night - she gave away a few things that suprised me quite a big to see
    on the screen (but luckily I had already seen it...)
    
       ILM really outdid themselves with the ray tracing...  too bad we
    didn't sell them DECstations rather than the SGI workstations they used
    to do it...
    
    						-mjg
    

There is an on-going discussion in the movies notesfile I've been reading over
the last week. The general consensus is that the new movie is great.

Mike

About batteries a few years and replys back...
In the April cycle world magazine is an article about one person in Calif.
who has built an a 1000 amp/240 volt dragbike in the mid-11-second range.

He has built it out of off the shelf parts, and only spent $10k to do it.

So a terminator (running on batteries) might just be possible if technology
keeps making the same level of improvements.

/jon