"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> writes:

>> > I would say it's *entirely* unbelievable. Why on earth (or moon) would a
>> > company probably worth multi trillions of dollars not able to afford to
> keep
>> > a crew of more than one person on their  base? Does it make sense to any
>
>> Who said they can't afford it?
>
> Are you suggesting that a company supplying clean, practically limitless
> energy to the whole world cannot afford a couple of manned moon launches per
> year? I did not realize the energy business was so hard to make a buck in.
> Maybe we should start a donation fund to help our poor oil companies...

Who said they can't afford it?

> On a practical matter, the spacious accomodations on the base that look like
> it could easily house 20, with leather, upholstered furniture, real wood to
> carve... etc don't quite give me the impression of a cash stapped operation.

Who said it was cash strapped?

>> > reasonable businessman, not to mention paranoid shareholders, to trust
> all
>> > your company marbles to the sanity and physical health of a single
> human?
>
>> If it's been tested, yes.
>
> No. It's something not even worth testing. You never ever do that, period.

An opinion is not a fact.

> Even our tiny little company has a policy against key personnel traveling
> together. Do yo realize how much paranoid risk assessment goes in mega
> corporations?

Well, let's see. You start off a thread complaining about a science
fiction movie, and then you insist on rules that follow a subset of
today's businesses.

Who's being uncreative here?

>> > Why go through all the trouble (ethical, legal, technical, logistic)
> trouble
>> > of using self-destructing clones, when shipping a proper and healthy
> crew
>> > every six months or so would probably be even cheaper and without all
> the
>
>> Why assume that it is unethical?
>
> Because to assume otherwise (ie. clones engineered to die after 3 years is
> perfectly acceptable) goes against everything we know and believe. Plus, to

"We"? 

You must live in a small world.

> assume otherwise invalidates the point of the movie: If it's perfectly
> acceptable to do that, the movie becomes pointless and devoid of conflict
> for the audience.

So, there's little that goes on that is "unacceptable" in our world?

>> Why assume it is cheaper?
>
> It's cheaper in the long run when you consider the risks. Granted, I'm not

The risks have not been established. What risks?

> about to perform a real cost analysis. But at a first approximation, it's
> cheaper for the same reason a company hires a qualified engineer for 10
> times the cost of a bum on the street. When you are talking about running a
> billion dollar factory, you don't try to cut huge corners for extremely
> short term gains, if any.

It seems you're making wild assumptions about the costs. 

>> > risks? Plus, if you are going through all that trouble, why give your
> HAL
>> > clone an Asimovian conscience so it can screw up things royally when the
>
>> Perhaps because the clones function better with it?
>
> You are reaching. 

You are assuming.

> If anything, the clones would function better if "HAL"
> stuck to the official company line. Also, it can be argued that even an

I take it you're an expert on clones?

> Asimovian robot would lie in that situation to maximize the happiness of the
> poor soul before his inevitable death.

I don't recall: Did they say anywhere in the movie that it has to follow
the three laws of robotics?

>> > inevitable comes? (BTW, if you are going to rip off so many pieces from
>> > previous movies, at least try to improve on them. Compared to the
> original,
>> > the new HAL's lines and voice acting was beyond forgettable. What were
> they
>> > thinking? That the silly smiley faces would somehow make up for its
> utter
>> > lack of character?)
>
>> Set up a strawman, then blow it down. Congratulations!
>
> Huh?

Your assumption that they were trying to rip off much from other
movies. 

>> > It seems that the whole operation is automated, except for taking a full
>> > canister from the harvester and putting it into the launcher, which
> their
>> > engineers conveniently forgot to automate. Speaking of the launcher, it
>
>> By watching snippets of a few weeks of his life,
>
> There's no real "Moon" world to objectively analyze. Our mind model is
> solely based on the movie we are presented with. If you start adding extra
> information to the movie, you are making *another* movie.

Yes, and it takes a wise person to know when not to analyze if there
isn't sufficient information.

>> you managed to figure
>> out the whole operation the company is running. Very perceptive.
>
> I am not under obligation to *imagine* that he has additional, more
> important jobs. If the moviemakers wanted me to believe that, they would
> have to have *shown* me. Since they did not, it's their failing either way,

If the moviemakers had deemed your knowing that as relevant, yes. 

>> > that they remembered about the lunar gravity). Instantenous earth moon
>> > videoconferencing (everyone and their dog knows there's a minimum of
> just
>> > over 2 sec delay) shows that they could not be bothered to look up even
> the
>
>> This may have been a slipup, although I have no memory of it. The only
>> Earth to moon conversation I recall was with the robot - and I don't
>> actually remember it.
>
> He calls "his" wife (and talks to the daughter). I'm surprised you did not
> explain this away too by saying the parties deliberately started talking 2-3
> seconds before the other party finished.

Frankly, don't recall whether there was a delay or not. But still,
perhaps a valid flaw. I'll take it over loud explosions in space any
day.

Post a reply to this message