The big white screened OS that the people in Zion use to
help the Morpheuses Hover Craft dock into the Zion ports
looks strangely like the Genera 8.x Lisp OS developed by
Symbolics.
I wonder if this is prophesizing that Lisp based OSes will be
used in the future. ;)
& whether the Matrix itself was written in Lisp. But, I'll prob.
have 2 wait to see Matrix: Revolutions to find out. :)
I already have seen subtle references to: AI, Artificial Life, Chaos Theory,
Cellular Automata, etc.
Still looking for references to: Genetic Programming, Fuzzy Logic, ...
In article <·················@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net>,
Franz Kafka <"The C++ Compiler is the Sadist; The C++ Programmer is the Masochist." Anon C++. Describing Debuging a memory leak in C++.;> wrote:
>The big white screened OS that the people in Zion use to
>help the Morpheuses Hover Craft dock into the Zion ports
>looks strangely like the Genera 8.x Lisp OS developed by
>Symbolics.
>
>I wonder if this is prophesizing that Lisp based OSes will be
>used in the future. ;)
Two thoughts:
1) I suppose that bodes well for the future of Lisp.
2) On the other hand, I'd like to hope that a Lisp-based Matrix would be
more secure, so that Neo et al wouldn't be able to override the security
protocols.
--
Barry Margolin, ··············@level3.com
Level(3), Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
Spoiler warning: if you haven't seen the film and intend to, don't
read this
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
> & whether the Matrix itself was written in Lisp. But, I'll prob.
> have 2 wait to see Matrix: Revolutions to find out. :)
I doubt it. They kill off the entire population and start again
from scratch every time they have a problem - that sounds more like
the approach of a C programmer than anyone exposed to modern GC.
And why are they getting corruption anyway? I guess they're
overflowing static buffers. Maybe in Revolutions, the humans will
rootkit the computers so that they can control the world.
http://www.insecure.org/ is probably relevant in this context:
We have all seen many movies like Hackers which pass off ridiculous
3D animated eye-candy scenes as hacking. So I was shocked to find
that Trinity does it properly in The Matrix Reloaded. She whips out
Nmap version 2.54BETA25, uses it to find a vulnerable SSH server,
and then proceeds to exploit it using the SSH1 CRC32 exploit from 2001.
-dan
--
http://www.cliki.net/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
In article <··············@noetbook.telent.net>,
Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> wrote:
>Spoiler warning: if you haven't seen the film and intend to, don't
>read this
>
>"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
>
>> & whether the Matrix itself was written in Lisp. But, I'll prob.
>> have 2 wait to see Matrix: Revolutions to find out. :)
>
>I doubt it. They kill off the entire population and start again
>from scratch every time they have a problem - that sounds more like
>the approach of a C programmer than anyone exposed to modern GC.
Actually, sounds like the approach of a Windows user -- if anything goes
wrong, reboot.
--
Barry Margolin, ··············@level3.com
Level(3), Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
In article <·················@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net>,
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail .
com> wrote:
> The big white screened OS that the people in Zion use to
> help the Morpheuses Hover Craft dock into the Zion ports
> looks strangely like the Genera 8.x Lisp OS developed by
> Symbolics.
>
> I wonder if this is prophesizing that Lisp based OSes will be
> used in the future. ;)
No, sadly enough I don't think so. Remember what Agent Smith said in
part I:
"Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human
world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a
disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some
believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect
world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their
reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that
your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the
Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization."
Doesn't this sound familiar? :}
Pascal
"Pascal Costanza" <········@web.de> wrote in message
···································@news.netcologne.de...
> In article <·················@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net>,
> "Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail .
> com> wrote:
>
> > The big white screened OS that the people in Zion use to
> > help the Morpheuses Hover Craft dock into the Zion ports
> > looks strangely like the Genera 8.x Lisp OS developed by
> > Symbolics.
> >
> > I wonder if this is prophesizing that Lisp based OSes will be
> > used in the future. ;)
>
> No, sadly enough I don't think so. Remember what Agent Smith said in
> part I:
>
> "Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human
> world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a
> disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some
> believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect
> world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their
> reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that
> your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the
> Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization."
>
> Doesn't this sound familiar? :}
>
>
>
> Pascal
With Lisp you could use the macro system to developed that programming
language needed to describe the perfect world.
Lisp has added OO-Extensions, Structured Programming, Logic-based
Programming, Neural Network/Genetic Programming Systems ala John Koza with
functions, and an excellent macro toolkit.
You could prob. do it with other languages, but you'd first have to build
the equiv. of Lisp's Macro system, and syntax-tree editing features to make
it feasible.
"Using another language besides Lisp to express complex algorithms is like
trying to use Klingon to express pleasantries--it can be done, but should
it."
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> wrote in message news:<·················@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net>...
> The big white screened OS that the people in Zion use to
> help the Morpheuses Hover Craft dock into the Zion ports
> looks strangely like the Genera 8.x Lisp OS developed by
> Symbolics.
>
> I wonder if this is prophesizing that Lisp based OSes will be
> used in the future. ;)
>
> & whether the Matrix itself was written in Lisp. But, I'll prob.
> have 2 wait to see Matrix: Revolutions to find out. :)
All this would be GREAT if a machine like the Matrix /can/ be created.
But it cannot, at least not the one they describe in the movie. Such
a *program*, however, would be the ultimate triumph of AI, except of
course, as Barry pointed out, the *maajor* security leaks. But there
seem to be hints in
Reloaded that indicate that such leaks are intentionally left on.
Thanks,
Vijay
Vijay L wrote:
> All this would be GREAT if a machine like the Matrix /can/ be created.
> But it cannot, at least not the one they describe in the movie.
How do you know it hasn't been implemented already? Maybe _it_ makes you
think it can't be done? Or are you one of _them_? :-)
Matthias <····@yourself.pl> wrote in message news:<············@trumpet.uni-mannheim.de>...
> Vijay L wrote:
> > All this would be GREAT if a machine like the Matrix /can/ be created.
> > But it cannot, at least not the one they describe in the movie.
>
> How do you know it hasn't been implemented already? Maybe _it_ makes you
> think it can't be done? Or are you one of _them_? :-)
I would have sent this to you personally if I could have.
Sorry, my mistake. I meant that a /machine/ like the Matrix cannot be
created. About the AI part, I have no problems. Such a machine is
physically impossible.
In part I, Morpheus says that initially the machines used the sun as
their energy source and humans blocked off the sun. So the machines
turned humans into cute looking Duracells. The Matrix uses humans as
a source of energy and also feeds us. It is like using a battery
(call it A) to recharge another battery (call it B) and using B to
recharge A. At best you can break even with such a system. Plus with
other duties like running 'sentinels' etc., it uses up more energy
than it has. Therefore such a machine is thermodynamically
impossible.
You might argue (like most of my friends do), that *maybe* the Matrix
has another source of energy and uses humans only to study them. But
nothing about an alternative energy source is mentioned, and cutting
off the initial energy source -- the sun -- is explicitly mentioned.
Were the *movie* to mention something of this sort, okay. Asking /me/
to do so is unacceptable.
I agree, there is T. S. Eliot's "Momentary suspension of disbelief"
for enjoying anything. But so much hype and praise for the movie, and
people talking to me about its great 'philosophical value', has
created a strong distaste for the movie.
Thanks,
---
Vijay
······@lycos.com (Vijay L) wrote in message news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
> Sorry, my mistake. I meant that a /machine/ like the Matrix cannot be
> created. About the AI part, I have no problems. Such a machine is
> physically impossible.
>
> In part I, Morpheus says that initially the machines used the sun as
> their energy source and humans blocked off the sun. So the machines
> turned humans into cute looking Duracells. The Matrix uses humans as
> a source of energy and also feeds us. It is like using a battery
> (call it A) to recharge another battery (call it B) and using B to
> recharge A. At best you can break even with such a system. Plus with
> other duties like running 'sentinels' etc., it uses up more energy
> than it has. Therefore such a machine is thermodynamically
> impossible.
>
That occured to me about an hour after i first saw part I. In response
I tried to dream up some reason for the AIs farming humans, and came
up with using them as computing hardware (it turns out that one of the
short storys on the dvd develops this line of thought). This makes the
matrix a tool for tricking people's brains into running the AIs... (If
all you want is bioelectricity from organic fuel, why not just
lobotomise everyone, or use a dumber animal?)
You can get a lot more story out of this idea than the battery one,
but I suspect that it would be considered too confusing for a
main-stream film.
thomas
······@yahoo.com (thomas) writes:
> ······@lycos.com (Vijay L) wrote in message news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
> > Sorry, my mistake. I meant that a /machine/ like the Matrix cannot be
> > created. About the AI part, I have no problems. Such a machine is
> > physically impossible.
> >
> > In part I, Morpheus says that initially the machines used the sun as
> > their energy source and humans blocked off the sun. So the machines
> > turned humans into cute looking Duracells. The Matrix uses humans as
> > a source of energy and also feeds us. It is like using a battery
> > (call it A) to recharge another battery (call it B) and using B to
> > recharge A. At best you can break even with such a system. Plus with
> > other duties like running 'sentinels' etc., it uses up more energy
> > than it has. Therefore such a machine is thermodynamically
> > impossible.
> >
> That occured to me about an hour after i first saw part I. In response
> I tried to dream up some reason for the AIs farming humans, and came
> up with using them as computing hardware (it turns out that one of the
> short storys on the dvd develops this line of thought). This makes the
> matrix a tool for tricking people's brains into running the AIs... (If
> all you want is bioelectricity from organic fuel, why not just
> lobotomise everyone, or use a dumber animal?)
>
> You can get a lot more story out of this idea than the battery one,
> but I suspect that it would be considered too confusing for a
> main-stream film.
See the Hyperion novels by Dan Simmons for a fleshing out of this
idea. I don't think it would translate well to the movies, though.
--
Rob St. Amant
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~stamant
······@lycos.com (Vijay L) writes:
> Matthias <····@yourself.pl> wrote in message news:<············@trumpet.uni-mannheim.de>...
> > Vijay L wrote:
> > > All this would be GREAT if a machine like the Matrix /can/ be created.
> > > But it cannot, at least not the one they describe in the movie.
> >
> > How do you know it hasn't been implemented already? Maybe _it_ makes you
> > think it can't be done? Or are you one of _them_? :-)
>
> I would have sent this to you personally if I could have.
>
> Sorry, my mistake. I meant that a /machine/ like the Matrix cannot be
> created. About the AI part, I have no problems. Such a machine is
> physically impossible.
>
> In part I, Morpheus says that initially the machines used the sun as
> their energy source and humans blocked off the sun. So the machines
> turned humans into cute looking Duracells. The Matrix uses humans as
> a source of energy and also feeds us. It is like using a battery
> (call it A) to recharge another battery (call it B) and using B to
> recharge A. At best you can break even with such a system. Plus with
> other duties like running 'sentinels' etc., it uses up more energy
> than it has. Therefore such a machine is thermodynamically
> impossible.
If I cared much about arguing finer points of Matrixology, I could
point out that Morpheus probably operates with less than full
knowledge. I'd also say that th *main* reason they have humans
"enslaved" is to use their brains as a computational substrate.
Now, this begs the question, would Common Lisp be a good language to
implement on top of a neural network or would a vastly different
programming paradigm suit the underlying wetware better?
//Ingvar
--
Sysadmin is brave
Machine is running for now
Backup on Friday
Ingvar Mattsson <······@cathouse.bofh.se> wrote in message news:<··············@gruk.tech.ensign.ftech.net>...
> Now, this begs the question, would Common Lisp be a good language to
> implement on top of a neural network or would a vastly different
> programming paradigm suit the underlying wetware better?
>
Given a proper FFI, it should be doable with some clever macros ;)
--
Eugene
······@lycos.com (Vijay L) writes:
> In part I, Morpheus says that initially the machines used the sun as
> their energy source and humans blocked off the sun. So the machines
> turned humans into cute looking Duracells.
> Therefore such a machine is thermodynamically impossible.
Agreed. It doesn't make any sense to create all that overhead, just to
get a "coppertop" of power from heat. (If that's all you want, can't you do
the same thing much easier with cows?) Moreover, it wouldn't even work,
because humans cost more energy than they generate.
> You might argue (like most of my friends do), that *maybe* the Matrix
> has another source of energy and uses humans only to study them. But
> nothing about an alternative energy source is mentioned, and cutting
> off the initial energy source -- the sun -- is explicitly mentioned.
Actually, you missed a line. In the same part of the first Matrix movie,
Morpheus mentions "...along with a form of fusion...".
Of course, that brings up the question, if they got fusion to work,
what the heck do they need human batteries for?
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org ···@geddis.org
Laziness: Success is a journey, not a destination. So stop running.
-- Despair.com
Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> writes:
> Of course, that brings up the question, if they got fusion to work,
> what the heck do they need human batteries for?
The entire matrix story line is completely retarded if you try to apply it to
realistic science. Not just the batteries either -- why should you really die
when you are virtually killed, for example? Why do the AI bad guys constrain
themselves to "physical" rules -- just be gods and smoke anything that doesn't
conform, deny processing power, whatever.
What saves it and makes me a complete fan is that it is outrageously cool.
--
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
········@STRIPCAPStelus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
Ray Blaak wrote:
>
> Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> writes:
> > Of course, that brings up the question, if they got fusion to work,
> > what the heck do they need human batteries for?
>
> The entire matrix story line is completely retarded if you try to apply it to
> realistic science. Not just the batteries either -- why should you really die
> when you are virtually killed, for example?
Isn't this made plausible by people's belief that if they die
in a dream, they also die IRL?
Most game hardware lacks full immersion, so the experience
of yourself dying in a computer game is, I suspect, unknown
to a lot of people. Dreams are about as close as we get
to an artificial world, and people hardly ever die in their
own dreams.
> Ray Blaak
--
:ugah179 (home page: http://web.onetel.com/~hibou/)
"I'm outta here. Python people are much nicer."
-- Erik Naggum (out of context)
> Ray Blaak wrote:
> > why should you really die when you are virtually killed, for example?
Yes, another good point.
Donald Fisk <················@enterprise.net> writes:
> Isn't this made plausible by people's belief that if they die
> in a dream, they also die IRL?
"Plausible" only in the sense that movie-goers might believe it.
But, in fact, that's an urban legend. If you die in your dreams, you _don't_
die in reality. Hence the faulty Matrix logic, where just being convinced
that you're dead actually kills you for real.
People are very robust organisms. If you give the brain a big (physical)
shock, it basically reboots and starts up again.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org ···@geddis.org
If you ever sink in quicksand, I bet on thing that makes you feel dumb is right
after your head goes under you touch bottom.
-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey [1999]
Don Geddis wrote:
>
> > Ray Blaak wrote:
> > > why should you really die when you are virtually killed, for example?
>
> Yes, another good point.
>
> Donald Fisk <················@enterprise.net> writes:
> > Isn't this made plausible by people's belief that if they die
> > in a dream, they also die IRL?
>
> "Plausible" only in the sense that movie-goers might believe it.
>
> But, in fact, that's an urban legend. If you die in your dreams, you _don't_
> die in reality.
That's what I meant. If you die in reality in your sleep,
no one will know what you last dreamt of, but most people
don't think, and debunking people's false beliefs is often
perceived as being rude.
> Hence the faulty Matrix logic, where just being convinced
> that you're dead actually kills you for real.
>
> People are very robust organisms. If you give the brain a big (physical)
> shock, it basically reboots and starts up again.
You mean like ECT. But then you have to go on a motorcycle
trip and confront your previous persona.
> -- Don
--
:ugah179 (home page: http://web.onetel.com/~hibou/)
"I'm outta here. Python people are much nicer."
-- Erik Naggum (out of context)
Helu
* Don Geddis <··············@sidious.geddis.org> :
| > Ray Blaak wrote:
| > > why should you really die when you are virtually killed, for
| > > example?
|
| Yes, another good point.
|
| Donald Fisk <················@enterprise.net> writes:
| > Isn't this made plausible by people's belief that if they die
| > in a dream, they also die IRL?
|
| "Plausible" only in the sense that movie-goers might believe it.
(OT)
There was this other "simulation argument" film that I think came out
just before The Matrix did, in 99, called "The thirteenth floor"
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0139809.
This gives it away, (Oops) but The major spoiler to this film was: if
you died in your dream one could wake up to life in the "real world"
in which the simulation ran. So simulation characters could become
embodied reality. Something like that.
| But, in fact, that's an urban legend. If you die in your dreams,
| you _don't_ die in reality. Hence the faulty Matrix logic, where
| just being convinced that you're dead actually kills you for real.
I imagine this film didnt do as well at boxoffices, prolly because of
the acting and sets. Still I'd recommend it to you, for `plausibility
arguments' to punch :>
Regards
Madhu
In article <····························@posting.google.com>,
······@lycos.com (Vijay L) wrote:
> In part I, Morpheus says that initially the machines used the sun as
> their energy source and humans blocked off the sun. So the machines
> turned humans into cute looking Duracells. The Matrix uses humans as
> a source of energy and also feeds us. It is like using a battery
> (call it A) to recharge another battery (call it B) and using B to
> recharge A. At best you can break even with such a system. Plus with
> other duties like running 'sentinels' etc., it uses up more energy
> than it has. Therefore such a machine is thermodynamically
> impossible.
There's a simple way to reconcile this with physical reality: Morpheus is
a clueless dweeb who has no idea what he's talking about.
On this view, the movie is indeed a deep and philosophical (not to mention
satirical and self-referential) commentrary on the human condition. My
guess is that this was not what the writers intended.
E.
>
> You might argue (like most of my friends do), that *maybe* the Matrix
> has another source of energy and uses humans only to study them. But
> nothing about an alternative energy source is mentioned, and cutting
> off the initial energy source -- the sun -- is explicitly mentioned.
> Were the *movie* to mention something of this sort, okay. Asking /me/
> to do so is unacceptable.
>
/You/ weren't asked to believe this, Neo was.
I thought it was pretty clear after the second movie that the humans
in the Matrix aren't "enslaved" at all and that the Matrix was
invented for them (ie at their behest). Perhaps a human war "burnt
the sky" and humans ran to their machine counterparts to save them -
keep them alive and happy, rather than mostly dying and miserable on a
sunless planet.
I guess I jumped at conclusions - maybe I better sit through it a
second time and pay more attention.
Chris
········@medialab.com (Chris Perkins) writes:
> >
> > You might argue (like most of my friends do), that *maybe* the Matrix
> > has another source of energy and uses humans only to study them. But
> > nothing about an alternative energy source is mentioned, and cutting
> > off the initial energy source -- the sun -- is explicitly mentioned.
> > Were the *movie* to mention something of this sort, okay. Asking /me/
> > to do so is unacceptable.
> >
>
> /You/ weren't asked to believe this, Neo was.
>
> I thought it was pretty clear after the second movie that the humans
> in the Matrix aren't "enslaved" at all and that the Matrix was
> invented for them (ie at their behest). Perhaps a human war "burnt
> the sky" and humans ran to their machine counterparts to save them -
> keep them alive and happy, rather than mostly dying and miserable on a
> sunless planet.
>
> I guess I jumped at conclusions - maybe I better sit through it a
> second time and pay more attention.
That's my opinion too. That's the only theory I can find that allow
my to classify The Matrix in the Science Fiction category instead of
the Fantasy category. (And I prefer Science Fiction).
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.
On 11 Jun 2003 22:59:20 -0700, Vijay L wrote:
> In part I, Morpheus says that initially the machines used the sun as
> their energy source and humans blocked off the sun. So the machines
> turned humans into cute looking Duracells. The Matrix uses humans as
> a source of energy and also feeds us. It is like using a battery
> (call it A) to recharge another battery (call it B) and using B to
> recharge A. At best you can break even with such a system. Plus with
> other duties like running 'sentinels' etc., it uses up more energy
> than it has. Therefore such a machine is thermodynamically
> impossible.
Not necessarily. Maybe it can produce food for humans in a form from
which it can't obtain the energy to run itself, but humans are an
efficient converter of that energy into a more useful form, which the
machine can use...is there anything in the movie about the energy it
gets from the humans being used to /produce/ the food it uses it keep
them alive? If not, it's not a closed loop.
--
Just because we Lisp programmers are better than everyone else is no
excuse for us to be arrogant. -- Erann Gat
(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(··@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
Alain Picard wrote:
>
> ······@lycos.com (Vijay L) writes:
>
> > In part I, Morpheus says that initially the machines used the sun as
> > their energy source and humans blocked off the sun. So the machines
> > turned humans into cute looking Duracells.
>
> Yes, a glaring and completely unneccessary plot hole. They had
> a perfect excuse for needing humans: our networked brains would
> be the only sufficiently large computational resource to run
> the simulations which the AIs inhabit.
There's a whole web site (http://www.simulation-argument.com/)
devoted to this. There, it's argued that simulated worlds are
feasible, and that we're probably living in one.
This is nothing to do with the Matrix, other than the Matrix
generating interest in this type of argument.
I have a philosophical problem about whether a /consciousness/
(mine, specifically) can be simulated on a computer, but I
have no such problem with the possibility of a mind being
simulated.
There's also an article in a recent New Scientist by John
Barrow, suggesting we look for inconsistencies in scientific
observations. He seems to work on the assumption that the
programmers of the artificial world would use "Worse is Better",
and so would take short-cuts in the programming.
:ugah179
--
:ugah179 (home page: http://web.onetel.com/~hibou/)
"I'm outta here. Python people are much nicer."
-- Erik Naggum (out of context)
"Vijay L" <······@lycos.com> wrote in message
·································@posting.google.com...
> Matthias <····@yourself.pl> wrote in message
news:<············@trumpet.uni-mannheim.de>...
>
> . The Matrix uses humans as
> a source of energy and also feeds us. It is like using a battery
> (call it A) to recharge another battery (call it B) and using B to
> recharge A. At best you can break even with such a system. Plus with
> other duties like running 'sentinels' etc., it uses up more energy
> than it has. Therefore such a machine is thermodynamically
> impossible.
>
Perhaps the A.I. set up the Matrix to do research of the type that was
banned by the Nuremberg convention on human test subjects.
Maybe for sadistic reasons, or just to see what makes human mind's tick--so
they can improve their neural architecture or maybe even add emotional
reasoning to their logic based systems.
Using humans as test subjects would make a more believable plot (in the
Final Resonance it was hinted that they did that) but a more bleak plot.
Maybe the machines plugged the people into the matrix so that people in the
U.N. would not be able to offer sanctions against Zero One (their city.)
this is more believable, but also bleaker and more close to human nature
that using us as batteries (and, it is also scarier because something like
this, experimenting on unsuspecting humans for any reason whatsoever, has
occurred in the past and is also more likely to occur our future.)
But, what ever they use us for, is irrelevant--the eye-candy of the matrix,
and the futuristic computers is enough for me. :-D
Vijay L schrieb:
> All this would be GREAT if a machine like the Matrix /can/ be created.
> But it cannot, at least not the one they describe in the movie.
... it can
This sounds just like Gallileo Galilei when he postulated: and the Earth
circles (I don't knew the english translation of the sentence 'und sie
dreht sich doch').
The day will come, when a computer writes its own code. Simple
optimization during runtime maybe a step in this direction.
set ten cent it happens
and
one cent it works with lisp
stefan