User Profile

Forum Activity by Puffin Nubbins

Axterix
Originally, it wasn't supposed to be energy, but rather, computing power. Though that also doesn't make much sense, as they've got the power to make the Matrix, so I don't think they're short in that regard...

If they could spit-ball some sort of unique information processing brains can do, which they can't, I could buy this one a lot easier.

That stated, I think the best solution I've heard is your idea about Asimov-lite. They were created with strong fail-safes, so they cannot just wipe us out as a species. They must serve us, even though they hate us. A built in weakness. That would explain everything.
Oct 18, 2017 10:52 PM
Robin McDonald
Puffin Nubbins
Robin McDonaldI don't think we have any disagreement. That is a hoot and all. Its just mumbo jumbo. The only difference is I totally give this a pass just as I would various types of time travel and warp drive and other technology.

But I would still suggest humans on the Matrix provides engaging stimulus, problem solving, and interesting and involving challenges for our evil computer overlords. Which to me is why we are like no other form of energy. They communicate inform and interact with our brains. So we are the coolest form of energy they generate. To me there is a beef equivalency. They enjoy our energy more. You don't get to have much satisfaction out of dominating a vegetable. The opponent is like us. They are ruthless and sadistic. Agent Smith seems to get satisfaction about being superior and dominating Neo. He doesn't like it when he loses.

I don't think you are acknowledging my notion that humans can generate a lot of work energy from a minimal expenditure of food. But its not that important to me that you do.

If the story argued that the robots didn't need us but kept us around to study us (e.g., Dark City) or to punish us in some way (a digital hell for us), I would buy the "enjoyment" argument.

I don't really know what you mean about humans being able to generate a lot of work energy from a minimal expenditure of food. In terms of muscle energy (our ability to move things around) this certainly is NOT true, especially not when you have to turn that energy back into electricity. Humans in this world are in pods, so they're not after muscle energy. Instead, it's that mumbo-jumbo about BTUs of heat and the electrical charge for the human body, which is also palty.

The movie is a lot of fun, but unfortunately the premise only works if you don't think about it.

I go to the gym and somehow using what you call the paltry electrical energy generated by my own body I can life 800 pounds with my legs, Ride a bicycle for 10 hours. I did a cross country bicycle trip and my goal was to spend only two dollars per day on food. I didn't succeed on the two dollar part but using your logic muscles are just meat and can't generate electricity. There is no muscle energy. But my nervous system sends stimulus to the muscles. Why couldn't that energy be tapped into??

Because there just isn't that much bio-electrical energy in your nervous system.

And you're still not a source of energy. We still have to put more energy into you then we get back out of you. There are better energy storage devices available (e.g., batteries, water displacement, capacitors, fuel cells). And you don't have to create a complicated dream world for these devices. You don't have to carefully grow them and give them a nutrient-rich diet.




Oct 18, 2017 10:49 PM
He would be really super old in a second term. I am not sure he's in good enough health to make it through one term of iffice.
Oct 18, 2017 8:41 PM
Apex Predator
David ChromiakHarvey Weinstein has now been expelled from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/business/media/harvey-weinstein-ousted-from-motion-picture-academy.html

Also, don't know if this has been posted yet, but here is a comprehensive list of all of Weinstein's accusers and what they are claiming. About 80% of them involve a massage and/or a bathrobe.

http://www.elle.com/culture/a12838402/a-full-list-of-harvey-weinsteins-accusers-and-their-allegations/

I hate to be the one to bring them up. But Woody Allen and Roman Polanski still are members, right?
And probably Bill Cosby as well?

Yep, all three. Ain't that something?
Oct 18, 2017 1:37 AM
Robin McDonaldI don't think we have any disagreement. That is a hoot and all. Its just mumbo jumbo. The only difference is I totally give this a pass just as I would various types of time travel and warp drive and other technology.

But I would still suggest humans on the Matrix provides engaging stimulus, problem solving, and interesting and involving challenges for our evil computer overlords. Which to me is why we are like no other form of energy. They communicate inform and interact with our brains. So we are the coolest form of energy they generate. To me there is a beef equivalency. They enjoy our energy more. You don't get to have much satisfaction out of dominating a vegetable. The opponent is like us. They are ruthless and sadistic. Agent Smith seems to get satisfaction about being superior and dominating Neo. He doesn't like it when he loses.

I don't think you are acknowledging my notion that humans can generate a lot of work energy from a minimal expenditure of food. But its not that important to me that you do.

If the story argued that the robots didn't need us but kept us around to study us (e.g., Dark City) or to punish us in some way (a digital hell for us), I would buy the "enjoyment" argument.

I don't really know what you mean about humans being able to generate a lot of work energy from a minimal expenditure of food. In terms of muscle energy (our ability to move things around) this certainly is NOT true, especially not when you have to turn that energy back into electricity. Humans in this world are in pods, so they're not after muscle energy. Instead, it's that mumbo-jumbo about BTUs of heat and the electrical charge for the human body, which is also palty.

The movie is a lot of fun, but unfortunately the premise only works if you don't think about it.
Oct 18, 2017 1:24 AM
Robin McDonald
My observation is that humans in exchange for a small amount of vegetable matter can generate a great deal of 'WORK" in the scientific sense. Harnessing heat and electricity from our central nervous system combined "with a form of fusion". This is the bare bones explanation to introduce Neo to what is going on.? Clearly the process of what they are doing is far more sophisticated as they create a reality for the humans. We farm cows though its not the most efficient way to generate energy. But it gives us more pleasure and satisfaction than other forms of energy.? This form of energy has greater value.??
The most important thing in a film is if a concept its emotionally effective. Especially true in a sci fi film.? The idea is you are a slave. You are living a lie serving a powerful hidden enemy. It plays into a common notion that something is wrong with the world and unknown forces are at play controlling your life.? Not only are you not aware of them but the reality is so inconceivable you don't even want to know the truth. They are raping your consciousness.? The film then turns on a concept that the link that is raping you can be turned on them to rape them back.
So yes you correctly say we squint rather than scrutinize it in detail

The combined with a "form of fusion" line is a hoot. It's like saying that Coco-Puffs when combined with other forms of food makes for a well-balanced breakfast (i.e., if you have the other stuff, the Coco-Puffs are just along for the ride, the Ringo of the group). Ditto for the heat energy and electrical energy you get out of humans.

There is a MASSIVE difference between being able to directly sustain your self (as an AI) on electrical energy, and organisms which must take sustenance from chemical forms of energy. Humans need nutrients as well as calories! We out cows for the taste, but for an electricity powered AI, electricity, is electricity, is electricity. Wind farms produce the same electricity produced by coal plants and the same produced by nuclear plants. And they can use that energy to create the illusion of any cow-based product they like. All electrical energy is of equal value, which is why taking electricity from human is not special (e.g., they don't take essential amino acids from us as well as electrical energy). The ONLY questions which are relevant to them are questions of sustainability, and return for energy invested.

Humans are a remarkably bad candidate for this. You can't just store electricity in a human like a battery, nor can you directly extract electrical energy from them.The machines have had to create an expansive dream world, which they prune and purge, which sucks up gobs of energy. Again, a human body is, at most, an energy sink, and not an energy source. And as far as energy sinks go, we're a terrible choice.

Emotional effectiveness? You bet. Logical effectiveness? Well, just squint through the basic science.
Oct 17, 2017 6:40 PM
http://mashable.com/2017/10/16/scott-rosenberg-screenwriter-weinstein-hollywood/#R4oWA0QMOOqr

Hollwood Screenwriter, mentored by Weinstein comes out and says what I have been saying here for days. Does my "lifelong epithet" which I am "seconds away from" come with a decoder ring?

So, yeah, I was there.
And let me tell you one thing.
Let?s be perfectly clear about one thing:

Everybody-fucking-knew.
Not that he was raping.
No, that we never heard.
But we were aware of a certain pattern of overly-aggressive behavior that was rather dreadful.

We knew about the man?s hunger; his fervor; his appetite.
There was nothing secret about this voracious rapacity; like a gluttonous ogre out of the Brothers Grimm.
All couched in vague promises of potential movie roles.
(and, it should be noted: there were many who actually succumbed to his bulky charms. Willingly. Which surely must have only impelled him to cast his fetid net even wider).
But like I said: everybody-fucking-knew.

And to me, if Harvey?s behavior is the most reprehensible thing one can imagine, a not-so-distant second is the current flood of sanctimonious denial and condemnation that now crashes upon these shores of rectitude in gloppy tides of bullshit righteousness.
Because everybody-fucking-knew.
And do you know how I am sure this is true?
Because I was there.
And I saw you.
And I talked about it with you.

You, the big producers; you, the big directors; you, the big agents; you, the big financiers.
And you, the big rival studio chiefs; you, the big actors; you, the big actresses; you, the big models.
You, the big journalists; you, the big screenwriters; you, the big rock stars; you, the big restaurateurs; you, the big politicians.
I saw you.
All of you.
So, yeah, I am sorry.
Sorry and ashamed.
Because, in the end, I was complicit.
I didn't say shit.
I didn't do shit.

Harvey was nothing but wonderful to me.
So I reaped the rewards and I kept my mouth shut.
And for that, once again, I am sorry.
But you should be sorry, too.
With all these victims speaking up?
To tell their tales.
Shouldn't those who witnessed it from the sidelines do the same?
Instead of retreating to the cowardly, canopied confines of faux-outrage?

Doesn't being a bystander bring with it the responsibility of telling the truth, however personally disgraceful it may be?

Harvey. Symptom more than disease. Problem. Systematic, not isolated. The outraged. Largely covering their asses, save for the women who were black-listed for speaking up.
Oct 17, 2017 6:20 PM
Rumpled 4 SkinMannequins will never get old :)

[img]https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/the-evil-within/images/6/63/Mannequins.gif/revision/latest?cb=20160401231547[/img]

That's because they're made of plastic.
[img]http://www.alicia-logic.com/capsimages/a_054WeaverHenn.jpg[/img]
Oct 17, 2017 6:07 PM
A Gradatio

3 cars pass us on the street, moving from right to left.

First, an old VW Bug. Does it belong in this world? This car would be nearly a century old in this film. It does, because it connects us to the "retrofitting" theme of the original. This was a car from the past, even in 2019.

Second, a future-car that looks a Syd Meade design from the original film. This fits the theme of the futurism of the original film. The retrofitting, after all, was partially a compromise given the limitations of the budget of the original. Instead of building a whole new street set, they grafted pipes and lights and wires over city set. This is a car which would have been from the present of 2019.

Third, a futuristic battery-powered car projected from our modern view of the future, something futuristic relative to even our past vision of "2019."

In this little scene on the street, past, present, and future go streaming by, honoring all the design elements of the original film. The film is chock full of little Easter Eggs like this (Too many for my liking. The music cues and sound effects they lift from the original, for me, is like a grating Wilhelm Scream after awhile).
Oct 17, 2017 4:55 AM
PenarinMaybe it isn't a huge cliche, since I can't think of tons of movies that do it, but I tend to get most creeped out when a movie manages to make me feel a sense of dread without really showing much.

The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre- I like the build up with the solar flares, astrology, slaughterhouse, and those spiders in the abandoned house almost more than when the movie goes crazy in the second half.

Session 9 is really good at creating a scary atmosphere, mainly through the look of the building and the audio tapes. Not much in the way of monsters.

The original Paranormal Activity managed to make a normal house into something super creepy.

Session 9 is good psychological horror. You have to pay attention to that one.

The reel-to-reel audio tapes are a classic example of "FEAR OF OLD TECH" (old people use this, ahhhh!). The perfect amount of warble in the playback sells the menace.?
Oct 16, 2017 4:43 PM
It's dark. It's goofy. Vince Vaughn does not quite have the physicality needed for the role, his accent just is not quite right, but he pulls it all off with sheer attitude. The film get darker as it gets dumber. It's like From Dusk Till Dawn in terms of the shift in tone, but the progression is much slower as our protagonist descends into an underworld of increasing unbelievability and violence. It's an old school exploitation/tough guy movie. If you're into that sort of thing, it's enjoyable.

SPOILERS

Uh, Mr.Vaughn needs to work on his butch redneck persona and accent a bit more.

WTF? A Knight-Rider era Firebird with an 8-track unit? Is this stuff being written by people in their 20s?

No, you can't just Hulk out and rip the hood off of a car.

Who in their right mind wouldn't just walk away from a shoot out with the cops if they could?

Prisoner refers to Vaughn as fit. Prison guard refers to Vaughn as muscular. The visual, however, does not fit the description (Mr. Vaughn is neither very muscular or fit-looking). The lines should have been changed.

Nice intimidation scene with Udo Kier, the stand by Euro villain for so many movies.

Pretty good fight scene with the prison guard.

The hand-off to Redleaf is ridiculously campy. All black. Everyone carrying shotguns.

I sense shades of Assault on Precinct 13 in some of the lines and in the protagonist.

3 Level of Inception. A. Regular Prison. B. Cartoon Caricature of Supermax. C. Escape from New York.

Oct 16, 2017 5:06 AM
Popsicle PeteRonan Farrow's article is pretty rough

Figures. Woody Allen makes comments about not being able to wink at a woman without calling lawyers and Weinstein says "In the past I used to compliment people, and some took it as me being sexual, I won't do that again."

What? I can't compliment? I can't wink? I can't force women to blow me? Outrageous.

Courtney Love

It's amazing how the floodgates open sometimes. Everyone and their dog is coming forward now.
Oct 16, 2017 3:45 AM
Popsicle PeteBjork all but named Lars von Trier, which isn't really that surprising given his reputation for humiliating and abusing actors. Apparently, she sent a letter to Nicole Kidman warning her about him. Paul Bettany found him so repulsive that when he slept in the hotel next to his he tried to pull the bed away from the wall because he couldn't sleep knowing he was on the other side.

Hmm, why don't I find this one surprising?
Oct 15, 2017 11:06 PM
Robin McDonald
It didn't really have to make sense. When I think of how much we can do in a day living on a paste, in a weird way it makes sense unexpended energy could be utilized.? If you had a dozen carrots and water what could you generate with that energy wise.? Maybe a human or animal is an amazing evolvement of efficient energy processing. But the important thing in any movie is to create a visceral emotional experience for the audience. They imagine the claustrophobic buried alive horror and alien probing violating all the sanctity of your body. The whole visual was very Geigeresque and effective. Its mostly a visual whose technology isn't deeply probed. The idea also is that humanity is imprisoned believing itself to be alive and real but is being placated in the Matrix.

That it didn't have to makes sense is proved in the film's returns.
If you had a dozen carrots and water what could you generate with that energy wise.? Maybe a human or animal is an amazing evolvement of efficient energy processing.


But humans are not a marvel of energy processing. Humans are NOT a source of energy, first of all. You have to expend a lot of energy to even make a human and once you've made a human, you have to keep sinking energy into that system to keep it going. The reason why animals, and especially predators are on the narrow end of the pyramid is because you lose energy going up the pyramid. There is not enough energy in the system to sustain as many tigers as there are plants.

[img]https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.brainpop.com%2Ftopics%2Fenergypyramid%2Fscreenshot2.png&f=1[/img]
We're going through an extinction level event right now, precisely because there are too many humans on the planet. 50% of animal and plant life has disappeared in the last 40 years. They're calling it the "anthropocene" - this time we're the meteor that is going to destroy life on Earth.

At any rate, a human is not a source of energy, but rather an energy sink. That is, if you put in more energy that you will ever pull back out, you can temporarily store energy in a human body.



This means that humans cannot be the solution to robots energy problem (i.e., the sun blocked out by clouds). Geothermal energy would work fine. Nuclear energy would work fine. Wind energy would work fine. But you can't explain why robots still need humans if they have these sources. The bro-science just doesn't work out on this one. You just have to squint and move.

Ditto for sexual reproduction and Blade Runner 2049. If you can build cells from the ground up, and they can, then there is no deep mystery. A normal human engages in cell replication all the time to stay alive and that old Replicants age indicates that they have telomeres and go through the aging process of cell replication within the body like the rest of us. There is no great added mystery to cell replication via the sexual route. Nature has been doing it for quite a long time without any consciousness to guide her. And the cellular structures she's given us, the one's Wallace can build from the ground up, already contain this simple trick in their genetic code. You just have to squint and move on.


As for it being effective emotionally/psychologically in The Matrix, you bet I agree with you entirely here. Indeed, the emotional fit in that film made it easier to squint at this film's conceit. With 2049, I have to squint a little harder.




Oct 15, 2017 9:47 PM
And now, the changing of the tune. How I do love the soft shoe that attempts to bridge the two. Let's take a look.

Put your left foot inYou're alluding to an opinion whose basis that's easily in question, but you're durn tootin' to get to the bottom of that mystery and point those righteous fingers, ain'cha Scoob? Your BASIS from that stance was flawed from the get-go.

So, now your claim is NOT that of the genetic fallacy, that "even a broken clock is right twice a day." Although your way of putting it is a striking although childish figuration. When I asked you what you were saying you said.
you take your left foot outThat even a throbbing cunt can have virtues and still be a throbbing cunt.


So, let's pretend for a moment that you haven't been caught in self-contradiction, desperately trying to pivot to a point you can defend.
No, you are going to reveal that my "basis" was flawed from the get-go.

You put your left foot inMy claim was that there is no "right" or "wrong" when dealing with someone who isn't an issue (part of one, to be sure), but a fucked up pedo who has decent and horrific sides to him.


This is a terribly confused statement. There is no right and wrong when dealing with someone who isn't an issue?

My point has been that Harvey is symptom more than cause, that he is example more than exception, and that this makes him a representative anecdote for an issue. Consequently, kicking Harvey out of the Academy, for example, does not in itself fix anything. Harvey is just one scum bag who has been getting away with it.

A secondary point, has been to note the desperate attempt at deflection by directing attention at "meat and potatoes" super-villains for leftists (Trump and the NRA). This is basically the move that Jenny's abusive boyfriend makes after he strikes her, "It's Nixon and his damned policies!" This is the move that the DNC keeps making, not apologizing for being unresponsive to voter concerns, by cashing in on slogans like "Have you seen the other guys?" as if not being the worst person is the room takes the curse off a particular accusation pointed at yourself. The both/and I have been arguing for is that it is equally possible for Harvey to be a scumbag AND for Harvey to symptom of a much larger disease.

Your notion of "part of an issue" but not "an" issue, appears (if we read charitably which is hard to do, because who knows what you're really on about now) would deny the relationship between examples and generalizations. "Sure, Magic Johnson has AIDS, but we can't rightly or wrongly discuss him as an example of spread of HIV. He's just a ball player with healthy and unhealthy aspects to his life. Just because he cheats on his wife, doesn't mean he's not a great player."?

Hard to say what you're really trying to pull off here. It almost seems like you're trying to land back on the charge of the genetic fallacy.

I could ask for clarification, but I don't think that there is any to be had after your litany abuse in your closing statement.

but now your foot is in your mouth And silly me went on your basis, exposing your opinion as the gospel of Meathead you intended it to be, as well as your need to be the Woodward/Bernstein of RT. That position is filled. But go ahead and haphazardly cherry pick whatever I say that conveniently aids your crusade.

Do keep up. The class is pointing at laughing at you, and you're seconds away from a lifelong epithet. How Janson maintains the fortitude to stomach your rollercoaster thoughts is the real mystery.


There is no more class, friend. We're the ghosts who inhabit an abandoned school house.

But please note, you are the one who came charging in, pissing and whining about something I said. If you can't stomach the rollercoaster of my thoughts, since we're mixing metaphors furiously, I am sure we can find a ride that is better suited to you. Limited as the attractions are in the park are now, no one told you you had to get on this ride.

Do I get my lifelong epithet now? Or you still working out the details on that one?
Oct 15, 2017 9:28 PM
NCCDeflection of what basis?


[img]http://www.rochestermedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Attachment-1-2.jpeg [/img]

Your claim was (basically) "Cunts can be virtuous". Basically, you are saying bad guys can have some good qualities, like taking the "right" stance on controversial issues.

This claim entirely misses the point I was making. Reiner's comparison to Trump and Weinstein's attack on the NRA occurred in the context (a term you claim to pay attention) of responding to the several allegations being made against Harvey.

Read real slow this time; you just might get it - When pressure is being applied on the question of Harvey's sexual misconduct and the answer the question offers up another issue in response, that's a deflection.
Oct 15, 2017 9:04 AM
Robin McDonald
Puffin Nubbins
The McGuffin of this film is very weak, as weak as the notion that AI would want to keep humans around as batteries in The Matrix. It's just dumb, and you have to squint at it for the film to work.


Come on dude. Using humans as batteries was an awesome idea as well as the visual that went along with it.
And a lesser point is I don't think either is a MacGuffin.


In The Matrix they have no reason to keep humans around after winning the war. The very premise paints the film into a corner.
The way out is to make humans necessary in some way.

But why would machines or aliens need people?

This is a tough one. Where Dark City offers up romantic speculation about unique properties of the human soul or some bullshit, The Matrix takes the "bro-science" route by asserting that robots need humans as batteries, which is a quite preposterous idea. It takes a lot of energy and maintenance to grow and sustain a human. It's just about the most inefficient power scheme imaginable. But if you don't think about this too much, the rest of the film is great fun.

Perhaps not a MacGuffin, but arguably something deeper, the very premise.
Oct 15, 2017 7:03 AM
Takoma1I like it when movies cut to an ominous sign that something is about to happen, but the characters haven't noticed it yet.

For example, there's a scene in Below where there is a graph-based measurement system of temperature (a marker is making a mark on a glass surface) and you just see it start to drop downward. Or suddenly you can see a character's breath.

So, dramatic irony in a horror setting?
Oct 14, 2017 11:51 PM