6:05: Logging into the Warner Bros. BD-Live account now.

6:08: There's a Harry Potter one on December 12, apparently.

6:12: Trying to figure out how to log into this commentary.

6:12: Sorry, I may have already had a few beers before this thing started.

6:15: I think it's the Director's Cut disc...

6:16: Still loading. It's a good thing I saw this movie already.

6:17: This IS December 5th right?? Why are there no screenings available?

6:25: OK I'm in. Had to join the session by joining the invite from an email. My fault.

6:26: Strange, it seems to be text only. I thought this thing was going to have audio.

6:29: There's even an option to have Event Audio "on", but it's not working.

6:30: Someone just asked him what's up with the name "McG"

6:30: Long silence.

6:31: He explains his mom actually came up with the idea to call him McG.

6:36: There we go! Commenter dishab says I had to change to Linear PCM audio to hear it. How in the hell would anyone know how to do that?

6:37: And now either McG is silent, or the audio stream somehow cut out. But he is talking about how he wanted to be a Laker.

6:39: This is seriously annoying. How would a normal person with a PS3 know to flip back and forth between Bitstream and PCM Audio? How would they even know what the hell either of those meant?

6:40: Don't get me wrong; the idea is pretty great. To have a director give live commentary and answer questions on top of the movie is a good idea. But this BD-Live implementation isn't any better than it was last year with The Dark Knight. In fact, I think it may actually be worse now.

6:42: Here's a FAQ posted by dishab in the comments in case any of you are having trouble.

6:44: I'm restarting the movie to see if that will fix the audio problem. What makes it even more frustrating is that I got it to work for about 30 seconds.

6:46: OK, now it works again. McG is talking about how they wanted to vary up the ethnicities of the survivors.

6:46: McG: "Where are all the people that hate this movie? I want these questions soon."

6:47: They're going to take a break soon. But before that they're talking about Moon Bloodgood's boobies.

6:47: The transcript on screen seems to be way delayed from what he's actually saying. 30-60 seconds.

6:48: Five minute break. And then afterwards some boobies.

6:49: I think somebody forgot to pause the movie like they did in the Dark Knight screening.

6:50: It's just silence and no typing now, but the movie is still playing.

6:53: It's starting up again in 30 seconds.

6:53: They're back. Oh they missed the boob scene. McG says he didn't want to make it the "gratuitous titty shot in a genre film."

6:54: He had to cut out some stuff like a screwdriver attack to make it a PG-13 in the theatrical release.

6:55: McG just compared his movie to The Dark Knight.

6:57: Question: how do you feel about making the horrible Charlie's Angels films?

6:57: McG: "I really like those movies. If you don't like them you can fuck off."

6:59: "I want feedback from the audience if you want another movie or not?"

7:00: From the comments the director's making, it seems like McG isn't really a fan of subtlety. I don't want to get too negative or anything...but yeah.

7:02: In answering a question about if Robert Patrick (T-1000) would be in a future movie. McG said that he might be, if there was a scientist that wanted to model a Terminator after himself. (Yes, he took that base idea from Terminator 3, in case you were wondering.)

7:03: McG just called himself heavyhanded.

7:05: Question: "What do you want for Christmas."

7:05: McG: "Blah blah let go of materialism blah blah spiritual salvation blah blah douche answer." It was pretty horrible.

7:06: I don't know how long I can deal with McG's commentary.

7:07: And now he just compared himself to Alfred Hitchcock.

7:10: You know when you're listening to a stupid person try and use big words he doesn't know the meaning of and end up using similar-sounding words that are totally different? This is like that.

7:10: You know when you're listening to a shallow person try to come up with some profound things to say, but fails miserably and sounds stupid? Yup. This is that.

7:13: The moderators are picking only the positive comments to give to McG to talk about.

7:13: He just announced that he's making another Terminator movie. Seriously.

7:15: Here's a tip that will go down in history from one of the film greats. "There's two elements that go into filmmaking. There's sound, and there's the picture."

7:16: Oh and for those people who are punching themselves in the face that he's making another one? He said he's making one after that.

7:19: McG just confessed to verbal abuse from his father when he was growing up.

7:21: And now McG is being coy about making another one? I don't get it.

7:22: McG says he only saw one episode of the Sarah Connor chronicles. And he didn't "pay attention" to the third movie. No wonder none of this shit lined up with the third movie.

7:23: It's also unfortunate that the main two characters have the names John and Kate.

7:24: And now he's talking about a second or third movie again.

7:24: I'm doing this for you, by the way, readers. Normally I would have turned this off an hour ago.

7:25: Words, words, words. He's using a lot of words to say very little.

7:27: And now the audio is cutting in and out. I actually like it more this way.

7:28: Here's a good comment from djbneozen:

Do you have to be really really full of yourself to be a director for a major Hollywood production nowadays? I'll just say it right now; T4...not that great. The movie lacked substance. No wonder they aren't really talking about it directly. I mean, specificly about what was going on in different scenes, why it was shot from this angle or that angle or what they may have cut from the movie. You know, discussing the "directing" choice in the movie with the DIRECTOR.

Batman, on the other hand, spectacular.

Jason...by the attitude of McG, I bet he had a lot more beer than you tonight.

7:30: They paused the movie to figure out the technical difficulties. Namely, the no audio-ness of what's going on right now.

7:32: You know, I think this movie is the only movie I've ever seen that was actually better when watched on the back of 7-inch airplane seat screen.

7:33: Now I have to restart the movie since the audio's still messed up.

7:34: Apropos of nothing, I just got a spam text talking about debt relief.

7:36: Anyone else like Community with Joel McHale? My favorite new show of the season.

7:37: OK audio is back. I wonder what stupid comments I just missed int he last 5 minutes.

7:37: Aaaaaaand he's talking about Hitler.

7:38: McG says once the T800 goes out, it's "curtains" for the resistance.

7:43: Wow, McG just dissed the third movie. Seriously? "We just tried to introduce credibility." Holy. Fuck. He thinks his movie is better than the third movie.

7:44: McG asked viewers who didn't like the third act, and it was all positive. Hell, I even liked the third act, because it meant the movie was ending soon.

7:46: He says Sarah Connor is going to be in the next film, but he's not sure how he's going to pull that off.

7:47: McG just says he loves what he does. Well, if I were a horrible director (I am) and got handed the reigns of a beloved franchise, I'd love it too.

7:48: McG: "I'm disappointed in myself that I couldn't make the best movie." Holy shit. He just said he thought he could make a better movie than #1 or #2.

7:49: Someone asked if McG could use Christian Bale in another one of his movies, what would it be? McG then talks about how it's good to work with Christian. And then babbles for three minutes before not answering the question.

7:52: McG talks about how he could have made a "dark ending" and ended the franchise by having [spoiler] Connor wake up from the transplant and shoot everyone else. Then it fades to black and the franchise is done.

7:53: THE MOVIE IS OVER! THE MOVIE IS OVER!!!

7:53: Thanks for reading everyone. I hope this was at least somewhat entertaining for you, as painful as it was for me. It's time to go break this Blu-ray disc so I'll never have to hear McG's voice again. Good night.

A group of German companies with expertise in parachute systems have joined forces to create the Gryphon Next Generation Parachute System. Designed for high altitude jumps, the Gryphon has a 6-foot wingspan and a glide ratio of 5:1, meaning that a solider can glide up to 30 miles in the air—60 if they go ahead with plans to add a small engine like the one used by Yves Rossy to cross the English Channel.

"All equipment is hidden in a lifting body optimized for stealth, the radar-signature is extremely low," says the Gryphon data sheet (PDF). "Detection of incoming Gryphon soldiers by airborne or ground radar will be extremely difficult."

Gryphon would also include a guidance system and heads up display navigation, which is all well and good, but it seems that the problem of landing still has to be worked out. Skydivers and daredevils using similar technology must deploy a traditional parachute in order to return to Earth in one piece. In order to get the most out of the stealth capability, it would be necessary to develop a way for soldiers to return safely to the ground using the wings alone. So far, there hasn't been any details on who might be interested in funding such a project, but this seems like too good of an idea to ignore. [ Danger Room via The Raw Feed]

Click on the image to see the high resolution version

Can you see him floating there, on the left, right below the huge arrow that I also missed when I saw the movie? That's obviously him, a fact that has been confirmed to me by one of the movie's sequence supervisors at Industrial Light & Magic—the same guy who said this previous sighting was just the shuttle.

I don't know about you but, right now, I feel like what I imagine my dog Jones feels every time I take his collar off to scratch his neck. Oh yesyeyeyeyes. YES. Harf. Woof. [Image capture from Science Fiction Stuff—Thanks ILM tipster]

Specter, who covers the science beat for The New Yorker, is pissed off. Forces on both the left and right have been coming down on good clean science like never before. Yes, this "denialism," as he calls it, comes from both sides. People on the left might think of it as Bush-flavored Intelligent Design agendas and bans on stem-cell research, while those on the right would recognize liberal whining about vaccinations and genetically modified food. It's all of these factions, and plenty more.

And in his new book, Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives, Specter demonstrates that ignorance is death.

For our discussion—fitting the theme of This Cyborg Life—we singled out synthetic biology, a pursuit, as Specter describes it, that "by combining elements of engineering, chemistry, computer science and molecular biology, seeks nothing less than to assemble the biological tools necessary to redesign the living world." Here's an edited version of our discussion:

So we're talking about, synthetic biology, the ability to take cells or small organisms and turn them into machines?

Yeah, that's essentially where building machines, unbelievably complex ones, that will eventually be able to do whatever we want, out of cells and chemicals.

Yeah, so we just mix some chemicals in a pot and suddenly we got a car manufacturer?

Well, it's a little more complicated than that, but that's the direction we're moving in—you put some chemicals together and you get an organism, and then you get a more complex organism, and you get organisms that'll do things, and you can get drugs, or chemicals, or plastics or fuel... These [scientists] are trying to take basic sugars, basic chemicals, and make it so they can digest carbon (which is kind of exciting though we're not there yet) or just diesel fuels, plain fuel, that doesn't emit any sort of greenhouse gasses. That has happened in small scales—we're there. It's just a question of scaling.

So why is this kind of low-level synthetic approach better doing than, say, the guys making fuel from algae?

I think the hope is that this will be cheaper and more stable. I don't know that it's better. I'm sort of agnostic on that, I think you'd rather have a lot of different approaches that are kind of greenhouse gas neutral. And whatever works, you'll use. And you know we're not gonna have one source of energy, we're gonna have a bunch. We're gonna have wind, we're gonna have solar, we're gonna have chemicals.

When we look at the malaria drug [one of the first products that can be manufactured through synthetic biology—and a project funded by the Gates Foundation], they are going to be able to make all the drug that is needed in the world in a couple of vats. One of the reasons that's exciting is because it's a stable, easy way to regulate the manufacturing, to make sure that it's done properly. We have a big problem with malaria medicine because it's misused, it's taken the wrong way, it's counterfeit—and this is a way of regulating it. I think we'll see that with energy sources too. It'll be solid.

In the book, you refer to the opening of the Will Smith film I Am Legend, when doctors say they've harnessed the measles virus and turned it into a cancer killer, a mutant virus that eventually turns everybody into zombies. But two years after the movie comes out, real doctors from the Mayo clinic say that they're using measles strains as a real cancer treatment, in real life.

The point I'm trying to make is, these things are a little scary. Anything that powerful has to have a downside. And we need to know what the downside is, we need to talk about the downside. And we need to acknowledge it exists and say to ourselves—and sometimes we won't agree—but say to ourselves, "Gee, you know what, the potential benefits outweigh the risks." Sometimes we won't think that. But I do believe that lots of times, given the information, we would think that way.

We're on the verge of creating our own viruses that go into the body—I mean, is that right?—they go into the body and they do something good rather than bad.

Yeah, but the thing is, that has a bad connotation but it ought not to. There's a guy named Eckhard Wimmer who created a fake version of the polio virus, and lots of people screamed, because why would you do that? I even trashed him in an article once and I was wrong and so were those people. What he had been trying to do was to make synthetic vaccines. In order to make totally synthetic, rapidly reproducible vaccines, you need to understand the viruses. Wouldn't it be great if, for H1N1, instead of growing tons of this stuff in eggs in Pennsylvania, we could just gear up instantly, making in factories all around this country, so that we could have millions of doses in two weeks? That's not a pipe dream; that can happen.

Who says whether this kind of research happens or not? Who pounds the gavel?

If you live in America, it'd be some sort of Democratic process. We need to have some sort of regulatory framework. Who approves a new drug? It isn't just a pharmaceutical company that says, "Hey, I've gotta drug, let's put it out there." No, there are tons of hoops to jump through, and we need to have some hoops. And we need to make those hoops reasonable so that they're not so ridiculous that no one bothers to try to jump through them but not so easy that we're endangering our citizens.

But the scientific progress will probably continue regardless of whether there's a discussion or a regulatory framework?

I've never seen anything in the history of our planet where human progress has stopped. People have gotten in the way, people have slowed things down, but yeah it continues. People do the work. And so I think we kind of need to get on board and harness that work. Some people said, "We need to stop some things," but I don't think that can happen. I don't think we can turn information back.

Right. In your book, you mention that Bill Joy's argument was to just put a padlock on certain venues.

Yeah, and I understand why he said that, I just don't think it's realistic. I don't think that's the way the human animal is built or has ever acted.

The point I think that you make in the book is that, if American science infrastructure bans certain researches, it's not gonna stop people who are outside America from doing the research, and maybe won't stop people who we definitely don't want to be doing this research.

It's true. Look at the stem cell ban. People went elsewhere to do it. It set us back, it set the world back. But it isn't like it stopped. That's a good thing, but it could be a bad thing. If we're gonna do sort of high-end synthetic biology, and be creating all sorts of exciting but theoretically scary things, let's do it in this country. Let's not have it done in some place with no regulatory system.

What's the worst thing that could happen here?

You mean like in terms of?

I mean in terms of messing around with this particular biological technology.

Look, the worst thing that can happen when you mix genes around is you can let something loose that you can't bring back that destroys, you know, fill in the blank. Humans? Animals? Life? That is the worst thing. That is the doomsday scenario and it... it can happen, these things can happen.

We have had agricultural biotechnology for 35 years and we've planted two billion acres. And people still talk about how it's untried and untested. It isn't untried. It isn't untested. It doesn't make people sick. It doesn't mean there aren't problems with it. But to go right to the idea that the worst thing will happen, it's crazy. There's always a worst case scenario. We don't need to assume it. We need to think about it.

And then obviously the upside, this is the point of the book, the upside far outweighs the downside.

Yeah, you know, the worst case scenario is something goes awry and destroys the universe. OK, that's the worst case scenario, and it's a pretty remote likelihood.

Now, a pretty good likelihood is, if we continue living the way we live, my kid, who's 16 years old, maybe she won't live a whole life because people are dying of skin cancer like crazy in 50 years. This isn't so long from now. We have really severe problems we need to address instantly. And those are the potential benefits of this research. We don't talk about that very much. We need to do the work and find out and make our decisions and not decide beforehand that it makes no sense.

If this has piqued your interest, or if you're just tired of people bitching about stem-cell research, genetically altered foods or the alleged evil that lurks in vaccinations, be sure to pick up Michael Specter's amazing book Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives, and meanwhile have a look at his most recent piece on synthetic biology in The New Yorker. Thanks Michael!

This week, Gizmodo is exploring the enhanced human future in a segment we call This Cyborg Life. It's about what happens when we treat our body less as a sacred object and more as what it is: Nature's ultimate machine.

Special thanks to Kyle the Intern for transcribing the interview

Designed by luxury fashion company Hermes and ship-builder Wally, the $142 million WHY 58x38 is more floating mansion than yacht. Those figures stand for its peculiar 58 by 38 meter dimensions, which is unlike any other vessel in the world. It features solar panels that will save 200 tons of diesel fuel per year, as well as 3,229 square feet of windows designed to bathe its interior with natural light.

According to Luca Bassini, founder of Wally, "I think the best part of this boat is the stern. It's not like the usual stern of a boat, it's more like the real beach of an island; a beach which is protected from the wind and the waves, where you can really relax." You are so damn right, Luca. If you are reading this, please move it somewhere near New York so I can lease one of its six suites for a year or two (and be a pal and make that the 2,152-square-foot master suite, please). [Daily Mail]

Still there? Well, then maybe you want another science video. One mindblowing one.

Yes, I know. I need a vacation too. [DRB]

The plot could be described in one sentence: "The new Enterprise goes out to investigate an alien being that's threatening to destroy the Earth." That's it. But how Roddenberry executed such a simple premise shows why this man was a visionary that George Lucas couldn't even dream of comparing himself to.

Since it's been years since you've last seen the movie—about 15 years for me—I'll give a short recap. Admiral Kirk comes back to take command of the Enterprise, a ship that's spent the last 18 months being retrofitted, in order to intercept a giant gas cloud that demolished three Klingon Warbirds with ease. The film spends the first half of the movie assembling the cast, showing off the Enterprise exterior, and basically letting everyone settle in to their roles. It then spends the entire second half of the movie journeying from the outer edge of the gas cloud into the center. What's there? The Voyager 6 space probe. (There's no actual Voyager 6 probe in our reality, in case you're wondering.)

Turns out V'ger (Voyager 6 with space dirt on its nameplate) was lost after it hit a black hole, which dumped it in the vicinity of a "machine planet". That planet? The Borg fucking homeworld circa 300 years ago. (The Borg aren't mentioned by name, but material deemed canon claims Roddenberry designated the species as the Borg.) The Borg fitted V'ger with "advanced" technology and sent it back to Earth to fulfill its mission of relaying information back to its creator.

Kirk manages to stop this thing by connecting V'ger with Voyager 6, recognizing that the now-sentient machine is looking for HUMANS as its creator, and tries to send the proper codes for V'ger to finish its mission instead of killing everyone on Earth. Kirk fails until the handsome Captain Decker, who was demoted to Commander because both he, Kirk and Kirk's ego couldn't fit into the same chair, merged with V'ger and created a new advanced life form. The life form explodes into another dimension and the movie ends.

So what the hell is this movie about? Quite a lot of things, but none of these plot lines or themes are satisfactorily concluded. Besides the obvious religious analogies that involve the creator and God and meeting the maker and somehow finding a purpose to life, there are a few weird subplots that all end as abruptly as V'ger does.

There was the Decker/Ilia relationship, which symbolized a man finally being able to "physically" be with a woman—the avowed celibate woman—who tormented him years before by not allowing his photon torpedoes anywhere near her docking bay. Then there's Spock's journey to find out the meaning of life, trying to decide whether he's going to go with Logic or Emotion (big L, big E). A mindmeld with a sentient machine that has the entire knowledge of the universe makes the decision for him, and it's the latter. No real explanation of this either; Spock just wakes up from swapping minds with a robot to realize that he's not one.

And of course, there's the theme of growing old and obsolete. Everyone's 10 years older than when the series ended, carrying around a little more paunch and a little less muscle. Even Kirk has been replaced by a younger, better looking version of himself. Only by strongarming his way back into the hot seat does he manage to prove that yes, he IS out of touch, and needs someone younger to save his ass repeatedly.

All of this is buried under $49 million of special effects. That's $139 million in today's money. In comparison, the similarly effects-laden Star Trek 2009 movie cost $150 million. Both were pretty good LOOKING for their time, with Star Trek 1979 spending (what seemed like) a larger percentage of the film just flying around and looking at stuff. The influence of 2001: A Space Odyssey weighs heavily on the way the movie-makers did things, even 11 years later.

But what's the point of this movie? Like I said, it was in part a big thank-you to long time fans, as evidenced by old characters popping up to say hello. Nurse (now Dr.) Chapel, played by Roddenberry's wife, who also was the voice of the computer in TNG and JJ Abram's Star Trek movie, makes a few appearances. Yeoman Rand, the blonde sexpot from the first season of the series, also pops up in order to screw up a transportation sequence and kill two people. She may hold the record for longest time without a promotion in Star Trek history.

That was half the reason. The other half was because Roddenberry had more to say, and now he had the money to say it with. Gone were the cheap purple sets and cardboard rocks of the '60s series; in are the clean, sterile lines we've seen in many "traditional" space operas of the last 30 years. You may think that the only reason why the movie eschewed the lived-in, half-assed quality of the original was because they finally had money, but you'd only be half right. They also did this for a reason; because space needs orderliness. Why? Because space is fucking scary.

The movie is littered with reasons why space is "the final frontier". Kirk rushes a jump to warp—normally an everyday occurence in the Star Trek universe—before Scotty says it's ready and creates a temporal wormhole where the ship almost eats it in a near-hit with an asteroid. The villain is a piece of technology we sent out, basically telling us that even benign actions like the search for information may come back (by way of the Borg) to shoot us up the ass. Transporting, a relatively safe way of traveling, won't just kill you, it'll turn you into a disgusting, screaming blob of tissue if there's just ONE circuit board malfunctioning. Hell, the seductively bald female Lieutenant that V'ger abducts, kills, and machine-clones was doing nothing more than just standing there. In order to combat all the chaos out there, outside your raised shields, you need to make sure your system in here runs with military precision.

The Next Generation, arguably the best iteration of Star Trek, continues the train of thought started by Star Trek: The Motion Picture. There wouldn't be that without this. No Picard, Data, Riker or Geordi without a movie that basically amounts to as a dealer test drive of the new Enterprise. No more romping around the galaxy having your way with this or that alien. It's judgement time; time to prove that Humanity actually belongs in space and is capable of handling what's out there. Encounter at Farpoint, here we come.

So go back and watch the movie again, this time on Blu-ray in the comfort of your own home. Hell, if you've put a little bit of money into your home theater it may be better than the actual theater you saw this in in 1979. But this time, watch with the knowledge of the last three decades of Star Trek with you. [Star Trek Movie Collection]

Gizmodo '79 is a week-long celebration of gadgets and geekdom 30 years ago, as the analog age gave way to the digital, and most of our favorite toys were just being born.

Iimage credit Wikipedia, Trekcore

Digital Domain was already working on some secondary characters for Transformers 2 while George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic building the main robots like Optimus Prime. Yes, Transformers 2 had such a big budget that DD was hired just to ride shotgun.

One key moment of DD's handiwork depicts the transformation of a girl named Alice—played by actress Isabel Lucas—into a lethal robot. The main shot, seen above, uses digital techniques like advanced particle simulation (physics) to tear 10,000 pieces of skin away from a girl's body—the kind of high-concept graphics that require lots of software know-how, and computers to do incredible amounts of heavy lifting. It was the sort of shot that showcased everything DD could do.

When Michael Bay saw it, he found it lacking.

After watching an early edit of the movie, Bay had decided that although the wide shot of Alice was nice, the film was missing a close-up—he wanted 40 frames of the girl's face as she began transforming.

The close-up wouldn't take as much as the full-body master shot. Instead of 10,000 pieces of skin, only about 50 had to move. But because of time, budget and manpower constraints, this animation had to be done the old-fashioned way—working by hand. It meant that five guys would spend the next three months of their lives on less than two seconds of the finished film.

Computer graphics supervisor Paul George Palop walked me through their process of crafting the "very, very painful" 40 frames.

The goal sounded simple: Transform this closeup of a human into a closeup of a robot. Alice's face would begin to shatter away, revealing a gruesome creature underneath. But to model in 3D over digital film takes some prep work. To make the effect look real, the guys would need to map the 2D film original shot into digital 3D space. Then they could add all the neat robot stuff.

First, the DD team cut out all of the background and extraneous objects (including Shia LaBeouf's head), isolating the female figure. It's the first step of a classic technique known as rotoscoping, a trick that predates Disney, in which animators overlay cartoon characters and other animation on top of live action backgrounds. (Now that CG has blended humans and cartoons, it's probably safe to say that there isn't an FX-heavy movie made now that doesn't involve some kind of rotoscoping.)

With the basic 2D work done, DD used a laser scan of Lucas' figure to create a perfect 3D map. The rotoscope plate was then laid over this map, allowing the animators to work with real image depth and geometry. We don't have that exact shot, so we stole a still from the later wide shot to make the point. On the right, you have the 3D body scan model. On the left, you can see the 3D applied to the 2D figure.

One artist worked solely on the little skin plates that cracked away around Alice's mouth. Each of these 50 or so pieces was hand-animated, frame by frame, to create the short effect. But to enhance the illusion of movement, artists applied extra texture to the tiles along with some displacement mapping to each tile's edge, which essentially complicates the square shape into an array of small triangles. (See how they look all jagged in the version on the right?) One the 3D-animated shapes were laid out, they had to be naturally lit, lest the girl's skin look unnatural before she transformed completely into a metal monster.

In the meantime, the exact movements of the human Alice head needed to be applied to the newly animated robot Alice head, so that any movement from the former could be copied instantly in the latter.

Finally, all of the pieces were composited, rendered and placed on a newly drawn background. You'll notice that beyond the obvious visual effects, artists beefed up Alice's figure a bit. They rebuilt the end of her left arm and, while they were at it, added a bit more lift in the back of her hair. Even with a blockbuster megamovie deadline, there's always time for last-minute styling.

After all of this meticulous work—three months of effort from digital effects masters—audiences everywhere got a bonus 40 frames of remarkable robotic transformation. Ironically, one of the movie's chief complaints would be its length.

The Laws
Asimov's laws initially entailed three guidelines for machines:
• Law One - "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm."
• Law Two - "A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law."
• Law Three - "A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law."
• Asimov later added the "Zeroth Law," above all the others - "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm."

The Debunk
The first problem is that the laws are fiction! They are a plot device that Asimov made up to help drive his stories. Even more, his tales almost always revolved around how robots might follow these great sounding, logical ethical codes, but still go astray and the unintended consequences that result. An advertisement for the 2004 movie adaptation of Asimov's famous book I, Robot (starring the Fresh Prince and Tom Brady's baby mama) put it best, "Rules were made to be broken."

For example, in one of Asimov's stories, robots are made to follow the laws, but they are given a certain meaning of "human." Prefiguring what now goes on in real-world ethnic cleansing campaigns, the robots only recognize people of a certain group as "human." They follow the laws, but still carry out genocide.

The second problem is that no technology can yet replicate Asimov's laws inside a machine. As Rodney Brooks of the company iRobot—named after the Asimov book, they are the people who brought you the Packbot military robot and the Roomba robot vacuum cleaner—puts it, "People ask me about whether our robots follow Asimov's laws. There is a simple reason [they don't]: I can't build Asimov's laws in them."

Roboticist Daniel Wilson [and "Machines Behaving Deadly" contributor here at Gizmodo] was a bit more florid. "Asimov's rules are neat, but they are also bullshit. For example, they are in English. How the heck do you program that?"

The most important reason for Asimov's Laws not being applied yet is how robots are being used in our real world. You don't arm a Reaper drone with a Hellfire missile or put a machine gun on a MAARS (Modular Advanced Armed Robotic System) not to cause humans to come to harm. That is the very point!

The same goes to building a robot that takes order from any human. Do I really want Osama Bin Laden to be able to order about my robot? And finally, the fact that robots can be sent out on dangerous missions to be "killed" is often the very rationale to using them. To give them a sense of "existence" and survival instinct would go against that rationale, as well as opens up potential scenarios from another science fiction series, the Terminator movies. The point here is that much of the funding for robotic research comes from the military, which is paying for robots that follow the very opposite of Asimov's laws. It explicitly wants robots that can kill, won't take orders from just any human, and don't care about their own existences.

A Question of Ethics
The bigger issue, though, when it comes to robots and ethics is not whether we can use something like Asimov's laws to make machines that are moral (which may be an inherent contradiction, given that morality wraps together both intent and action, not mere programming).

Rather, we need to start wrestling with the ethics of the people behind the machines. Where is the code of ethics in the robotics field for what gets built and what doesn't? To what would a young roboticists turn to? Who gets to use these sophisticated systems and who doesn't? Is a Predator drone a technology that should just be limited to the military? Well, too late, the Department of Homeland Security is already flying six Predator drones doing border security. Likewise, many local police departments are exploring the purchase of their own drones to park over him crime neighborhoods. I may think that makes sense, until the drone is watching my neighborhood. But what about me? Is it within my 2nd Amendment right to have a robot that bears arms?

These all sound a bit like the sort of questions that would only be posed at science fiction conventions. But that is my point. When we talk about robots now, we are no longer talking about "mere science fiction" as one Pentagon analyst described of these technologies. They are very much a part of our real world.

Machines Behaving Deadly: A week exploring the sometimes difficult relationship between man and technology. Guest writer PW Singer is the author of Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century.

The Mercury Seven were chosen in Washington, DC from a body of 69 candidates. The name comes from Mercury, a Roman mythological god who is seen as a symbol of speed. Because of the small space inside the Mercury capsule, candidates could be no taller than 5 feet 11 inches and weigh no more than 180 pounds. The initial flights took off throughout the early 1960s, though some astronauts were active in later decades. Here are the guys:

Malcolm Scott Carpenter (born 1925) was a US Navy piolot aviation cadet who flew missions during the Korean War. He was on board the MA-7 (Aurora 7) and was the first American astronaut to eat solid food in space. He successfully overcame an overexpenditure of fuel due to hardware problems on his one and only mission. Carpenter was forced to retire from spaceflight after sustaining a motorbike accident. After retiring from the Navy, he founded Sea Sciences Inc., a corporation for developing programs for utilizing ocean resources and improving environmental health.

Leroy Gordon (Gordo) Cooper Jr. (1927 – 2004) was very active in the Boy Scouts of America and achieved the second highest rank of Life Scout. Prior to joining NASA, Cooper also served in the US Air Force and Marine Corps. He was on board the MA-9 (Faith 7) and Gemini 5, and developed a personal survival knife for astronauts to carry. Cooper was the first American to sleep in orbit. Interestingly, he took photos of and reported UFO sightings to the Pentagon, but they swept the incident under the rug.

John Herschel Glenn Jr. (born 1921) began his career as a US Marine Corps fighter pilot. He was on board the MA-6 (Friendship 7) and STS-95. Noticed for his heroics in space, Glenn became friendly with the Kennedys and a prominent public figure. After retiring from NASA, he ran as a Democrat and represented the state of Ohio in the United States Senate from 1974 to 1999.

Virgil Ivan (Gus) Grissom (1926 – 1967) was a US Air Force pilot before joining NASA. He was on board the MR-4 (Liberty Bell 7), Gemini 3, and Apollo 1. Grissom was tragically killed along with fellow astronauts Ed White and Roger Chaffee during a pre-launch test for the Apollo 1 mission. After death, his family was involved in a spacesuit controversy: NASA insisted Grissom got authorization to use his spacesuit for a show and tell at his son's school and never returned it, but his family claimed the he had rescued the spacesuit from a scrap heap and that it rightfully belonged to them.

Walter Marty (Wally) Schirra Jr. (1923 – 2007)'s father was a pilot, and his mother performed wing walking stunts when he was on duty. Schirra served as an officer in the US Navy, and was later dispatched to South Korea as a pilot on loan to the US Air Force. On board the MA-8 (Sigma 7), Gemini 6A, and Apollo 7, he was the only person to fly in all of America's first three space programs. Schirra gained notoriety for playing "Jingle Bells" on a harmonica he smuggled on board Gemini.

Alan Bartlett Shepard Jr. (1923 – 1998) began as a US Navy as test pilot. He was the first American in space, and flew on board the MR-3 (Freedom 7) and Apollo 14. It's said that shortly before one launch, Shepard blurted out "Please, dear God, don't let me fuck up." This has since become known among aviators as "Shepard's Prayer." A successful businessman, Shepard was the first astronaut to become a millionaire while still in the program. His hometown of Derry, NH almost changed its name to "Spacetown" in honor of Schirra's career.

Donald Kent (Deke) Slayton (1924 – 1993) was also a US Air Force pilot before joining NASA. He was grounded from space flight by a heart condition, but served as NASA's Director of Flight Crew Operations. Slayton served as head of Astronaut selection. In 1972 he was granted medical clearance to fly as docking module pilot of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. At the time of the flight, he became the oldest person to fly into space. [NASA and Wikipedia]

In 1929, The Great Depression popularized popcorn as a movie time treat since it was cheap, easy, tasty and somewhat filling. Back then, a bag cost you 5 cents. Now, a (small) bag costs you $4.75. Sure, our new bag is probably a bit bigger, but it's vastly more expensive.

In fact, when adjusted for inflation, popcorn prices* have seen an ironic 666% price increase, while movie ticket prices have increased a more moderate 66%. The above picture tells the story to scale, but just in case you're a bigger fan of numbers:

1929
Movie - $4.32 ($0.35 pre-inflation)
Popcorn - $0.62 ($0.05 pre-inflation)

2009
Movie - $7.20
Popcorn - $4.75

What gives? As many of you know, Hollywood takes a majority of ticket proceeds (we're talking upwards of 70% or more) during the first few weeks a film is released. Not so coincidentally, those first few weeks are also usually a film's best-attended screenings. So theaters fall back to popcorn, soda and candy to make money because Hollywood doesn't see a cut of these sales.

But is this 666% popcorn price increase evil? Obviously, numbers don't lie. Has the increased price of popcorn helped keep ticket prices in check? Possibly, though there's no real way of knowing.

Still, one thing's for sure: Those stadium seats and surround sound systems won't pay for themselves...right?

* Explanation on Data
Movie ticket data is based upon stats by the MPAA/NATO, seen here, with a 2009 estimate based upon the 2008 price. Realize that movie ticket price is always an average of all tickets sold per year, which drops the price greatly due to child tickets, matinees and second run theaters.

Popcorn price was based upon the widespead 5-cent bag of popcorn compared to a small popcorn from the AMC in Brooklyn, OH—which we feel is, if anything, a conservative sampling of movie popcorn prices. We'd love to have an average sale price on movie popcorn across America (just as we do tickets), but that data is not tracked by either the Popcorn Board or the National Association of Concessionaires.

Additional research by Andrea Wang, Graphic by Jesus Diaz

In the movie, the computer runs the classic Macintosh System in inverted video mode, white over black. Don't forget to check io9's Watchmen review and coverage, as well as our Steve Jobs conspiracy theory and multiple babblings on the movie.

Update: VERY sorry for the spoilers. Took those out. – JC

Marc Oakland was helping to clean a pond in Beulieu, Hampshire, UK, when he stumbled upon the head of Dr. Who's enemy, the Dalek. Apparently, there was some filming done for the show in the 80s in the area, and the head was left behind. Either that or this Dalek got turned around somewhere and died a slow, undignified death at the bottom of a marsh. [Metro.co.uk via The Daily What]

Usually, the blurbs for fake DVDs are just babbled translations of whatever description the Chinese came up with. Maybe after years of having those lampooned, DVD piraters decided to copy-paste reviews from online instead. Only, I guess it's really hard to tell what's a good review when you don't speak English.

In case you were wondering, the review was from IMDB. Good job, marytothemax! Betcha didn't know millions would be using your review to decide whether to pick up a pirated version of Fox's Terminator show!

Seriously, while the T-Mobile G1 leaves me completely in a blah state of mind, DSTL1 actually makes me horny in a "I wish this thing vibrates really hard" kind of way.

Look at it. It's like the Battlestar Galactica designers took the iPhone design and passed it through their Colony-Design-a-thon, adding angled corners to it but keeping the same black glass, chrome accents, black plastic, circular home button, ear speaker grill, and volume controls. The result is a design which looks extremely familiar to the public, yet adds enough changes to appeal to people who want something cool looking, but different. And with better specs too:

Technology
Double SIM, Linux 2.6 Kernel
Platform
Marvell PXA 310 (624MHz)+NXP 5209
Bands
900 / 1800 / 1900 MHz
Screen
TFT/ WQVGA/ 260K Colors/ 3.0" Sharp Brand Touchscreen Display/ 240 x 400 pixels
Wi-fi
802.11 b/g
GPRS
Yes
EDGE
Yes
WAP
Yes, HTTP/WAP2.0 support
MMS
Yes
E-mail
Yes
Bluetooth
Yes / BT 2.0 + EDR, SPP, A2DP, AVRCP, OPP, HFP
FM Radio
Yes
TV
Java
Yes ( MIDP 2.0, CLDC 1.1 )
MP3/MPEG4
Yes/Yes
Face to Face videoconferencing
Yes

Weight
135gr
Dimensions
112 x 54 x 16 mm
Memory
4GB internal memory, 256MB flash + 128MB SDRAM ,"Up to 8GB T-flash Card Support"
Camera
5MP Auto Focus with Flash Sharp Brand Camera
Voice Recorder
Yes

Talk Time
240 minutes
Standby Time
150 hours
Battery
1200 mAh
Accessories
Extra Battery, USB Cable, Earphone, AC Charge Adaptor

Others
Word, Excel, Powerpoint and PDF document view MP3/ WAV/ MIDI/ AMR support 3GP, MPEG4, AVI (DIVX),QVGA recording 30fps, decoding 30 fps JPG/GIF/BMP/PNG Business card reader support Anti theft support Video chat support

Impressive. Apparently the DSTL1 it will be at Barcelona's 3GSM in February and I will be there to see if all these features are the real thing and how much this beast will cost. But on paper and renderings, it may be the first phone that would make me drop my iPhone. The only "but" for me: It's 0.63 inches thick (16mm). Too much of a brick after being used to the ultra-thin iPhone. [General Mobil via Android Authority]

Future, Cupertino — After a long and fruitful tenure as CEO, Steve Jobs steps down in early 2009 to fanfare and industry fawning. Apple needs a new leader. It's time to choose your own adventure.

Much deliberation and coin tossing goes on in the back rooms of Apple. Their board of directors choose a person who they strongly believe can lead Apple into its next phase of growth, a person who can, at the very least, match Steve Jobs' product development whip cracking, if not his outsized public persona.

The board chooses...

• Jonathan Ive, Apple's Senior Vice President of Industrial Design. Turn to page 10.
• Phil Schiller, Apple's Senior Vice President of Worldwide Product Marketing. Turn to page 11.
• Tim Cook, Apple's Chief Operating Officer. Turn to page 12.
• Bill Gates, Super Rich Dude. Turn to page 13.
• Yourself, Super Poor Dude. Turn to page 14.

Choose Your Own Adventure is property of CYOA.com.

Good news, everyone! Terminator 4 might not suck. I can’t know for sure without actually seeing the film, but I do have a good feeling about it, having flown to New Mexico a few months back to explore various hot, dusty sets and meet cast and crew.

The three themes I heard over and over during my set visit were “Batman,” “Macs,” and “T3 sucked.” It was like attending some strange but beautiful techno-mass that was worshiping Gizmodo’s own holy trinity.

“In the same way Warner Bros. took Batman and really turned the franchise on its head and made it really dark and really cool, we’re going through the same whirl with our Terminators,” production designer Martin Laing explained to us in front of a wall of concept art.
He showed us robots, lots of them. But unlike the slick and crafty T1000, these machines are constructed of dark, dirty alloys. They’re big. They’re bad. And they’re driven by crude mechanics like pistons. The T600, a completely new, Frankenstein-ian Terminator is evidence of this trend. Standing over seven feet tall and modeled to be the product of a Soviet tank factory, the T600 has a blatant disregard for personal grooming as his rubber skin cracks away in the desert heat. He makes the Schwarzenegger T800 look like a sleek sports car, a fitness model... a politician.
“Imagine your first Mac,” director McG explains later over the bounties of the crafts services. (That's movie-talk for free food.) “You had a IIcx. You had two megs of memory. And now you have a MacBook Air. It’s leaner, faster. Technology is more and more space efficient and that’s the language we’ve been following with the machine development.”

Indeed, McG and Laing both mentioned Macs and Batman, an unlikely combination that makes a whole lot of sense in terms of SkyNet’s learning curve in eradicating the human race, especially as I inspect the giant exoskeletons, the retrofitted robotic motorcycles, and the huge bulldozer-esque people “Harvests.”

This is the post-apocalyptic Terminator Salvation world we have to look forward to, one that’s crude and imperfect—not just unpolished, but smeared in a deep mixture of oil and dirt.

“Anybody can flap their lips and say that this is going to be the greatest thing since sliced bread,” McG admits. “All I know is that Bale doesn’t fuck around—he’s already Bruce Wayne, he doesn’t need to be John Connor.”
That's pretty much all I can say for now, but rest assured you'll hear more from my visit later on.

Tell me about how you assembled the series.

In terms of structural influence, there was a series when I was a kid called the Mushroom Planet books by Eleanor Cameron. There wasn’t a lot of science fiction available for kids then (or now) and she had this great trick of finishing off a story but leaving you with an unresolved image that you couldn’t stop thinking about.

I picked up that particular trick and applied it to this series. This was not meant to be a series. It was meant to be a standalone book, My Teacher is an Alien. The thing where Peter goes off and Susan goes out and looks into the sky, wondering what’s going on, was meant to give the reader something to continue the story in their own head.

But the book became so unexpectedly popular. Literally, it sold as many copies as my first 20 books all put together had sold in the previous 13 years, and I was getting a lot of letters from kids demanding to know what happened next. The publisher, of course, wanted to take advantage of this too.

I actually wasn’t that enthusiastic about doing another book. I got a lot of pressure and I was listening to Jonathan Kozol speaking in New York. I realized the only reason to do this kind of book was to see us from the outside.

The reason I like writing this alien stuff is because when you’re in your own mess you can’t see it. You’ve probably seen this with friends. You know they’re in a horrible romance. You can see it. All their friends can see it. But they can’t see it because they’re inside of it.

We can’t see our own mess when we’re inside it, but the aliens can look at us from the outside and say, “There’s enough food an people are starving. I don’t get it,” and make us look at it too.

The publishers were just looking for a sequel at that point and I said, “We’ll do two more books, and for me to keep it interesting as a writer, I’ll do the next book from Duncan’s point of view and the last book from Peter’s point of view. And what happened was the third book got so long and complex that I had to split it in half.

It took as long as the first three books put together to write the fourth book. I kept stumbling on how to do it. I’d done each of the main kids, so I thought, who’s going to narrate the fourth book. Oh, I’ll have it be Broxholm narrate it. But that didn’t work because Broxholm was an adult and as soon as soon as he starts to narrate it, it became an adult book, not a kids’ book.

The other thing I tried was to have all three kids narrate it in alternating chapters. But that didn’t work because sometimes one kid was having a lot of adventure and another kid was having nothing going on. I was trying to force stuff in that didn’t work.

And finally I realized, the fourth book was really simply the rest of Peter’s story.

But I could not have written the fourth book—which actually sold the most of all of them—without the first three books. I mean, the publisher would not have let me go where that book goes because people wouldn’t think that kids were ready for that.

What do you mean by “could not have written it”?

It’s very dark and it’s very direct. The kids see torture and they see a starving baby. This was light paperback fiction. But the sales of the first three books bought me permission to go where I wanted to go in the fourth book.

Do you feel like that philosophy going into the fourth book, where you had more liberty and pursued content that might be heavier for kids, has followed you through the rest of your career?

Actually, I think the fourth book is the farthest step going in that direction. I consider the fourth books a secret between the kids (now the young adults) who read it and me. Because the books were paperback originals, they didn’t receive much review attention, especially as the years went on because the review media tend to pay attention to new hard covers. So when you’re writing paperbacks, it sort of circumvents the review world and a lot of adults had no idea what was going on in that book. It was me and the kids in a conversation with each other. [Bruce Coville]

Back to Part 1

As a kid, I raised my hand too often in class and looked forward to science projects. I drew pictures of space ships and aliens on my notebooks before rushing home after school to play on my IBM 386. As for many young nerds, school could make for a solitary life. I related to a set of books—the My Teacher Is an Alien series—better than I could with most of my lunch-table peers.

If you are in your mid 20s like me, chances are you've read the series, penned by Bruce Coville, one of the most acclaimed names in children's sci-fi. It's the ongoing story of a young boy named Peter who—kidnapped by an alien disguised as his teacher—visits other planets, travels on space ships and meets a universe of aliens first hand, before having to argue humanity's case against a galactic jury, lest they quarantine or even kill us for our warmongering ways. After rereading the series on a nostalgic rainy weekend, I decided to call up Coville and ask him what was going through his head when he wrote it all. It ends up, he's just as interesting now as I, at age eight, would have imagined him.

The devices Coville dreamed up for Peter's journey were amazing then, and still amazing now. Peter uses a URAT ("Universal Reader and Translator," kind of like a PDA on steroids) to teleport around a ship the size of New Jersey. Meanwhile his crush Susan is caught in a stasis forcefield, and his arch nemesis, Duncan the former dunce, is the smartest person alive following a zap to the brain. Some of the tech was and is farfetched, while much of what was once considered alien (literally) has become commonplace. The first book in the series was published back in 1989, before broadband, 3G wireless and laptops in every home.

Peter Thompson is your stereotypical dork, does well in school, gets picked on and is always reading science fiction. Do you think geeks are perceived differently in society today than around 1990?

Oh yeah. Geekhood is definitely much cooler than it used to be. It’s come a long way.

Would Peter get by better today?

Not necessarily. In the kid culture, I don’t think that’s caught up. When you enter the adult world, you realize, wow, geeks make more than I do. But in the kid world, he’s still kind of geeky.

Did you think early in your career that we’d see technology become a mainstream subject?

Yeah, actually I did. As a sci-fi writer you have to be a futurist. I was a very early adopter of a personal computer. And one thing that I try to apply when I’m thinking about things is the curve of technology and the way technology feeds on itself and speeds things up.

Science fiction is not as predictive as we’d like to think it is. Yeah, Jules Verne talked about submarines, but they were around already. What science fiction does well is not predict what the change is going to be, but make it clear that there is going to be change. What the great science fiction writers missed in computers was miniaturization. You go back to those stories and see where they were talking about the UNIVAC, these room-sized, building- sized computers. They missed miniaturization and the fact that computers would not be owned by giant corporations, that we’d all have them.

OK, now this is kind of unfair. But I made a small list of technologies that are in the My Teacher series and I thought you could say “yes” or “no” as to whether or not they’ll ever exist.

(Laughing nervously)…if I’d known there’d be a pop quiz, I would have reread the books.

Brain-zapping intelligence booster?

Yes.

Universal language translator?

Yes.

Machine-based telepathy?

Maybe.

Faster-than-light travel?

Maybe…that’s the big one…it may be that we’re limited to the world as we understand it now but my sense is that we’ll find a way around that…Yeah, I think it’s gonna happen.

Teleportation?

No.

Pocket holograms?

Yes.

Forcefields?

Yes.

Self-fitting masks?

Yes.

With 20 years of perspective, do you think you’d write the technology differently?

The Earth technology in the series is not much part of the story. It’s really about the alien technology. What the series does not include that I would have to do differently now is kids using the internet, going online or using cellphones.
Anything different in terms of alien technology?

I don’t think I’d do that much differently. We’re moving more rapidly to having something like a URAT ourselves than I thought we would. I have friends in the science-fiction world who say the ebook will never catch on because people love real books and I could never read off the screen. To me that’s like saying television will never catch on because who wants to watch a black-and-white picture on a circle that’s 12 inches wide.

The URAT was really me trying to envision where that kind of [handheld computing] technology would go, and we’re getting there faster than I anticipated.

The URAT itself combines a PDA, networking and a 3D hologram projector...

You know, it’s been a while since I’ve read it. I can’t tell you everything the URAT did.

I’m having a real SNL Star Trek moment where William Shatner starts yelling at the Trekkies.

(Laughs)

Are there any examples of a scientific announcement or invention that makes you say, “I came up with that!”

(Laughs) I do look at things and say I was talking about that. I don’t necessarily say I came up with it. The iPhone is really pushing forward what the URAT is. I look at that and think, yeah, that’s what I was talking about 15 or 20 years ago.

Do you think that Jobs ripped you off?

Oh, no no. (laughs) Even if they saw it—which I highly doubt—I would be thrilled if I had any hand in it. Ideas should be exchanged.

A lot of sci-fi shares these mutual visions.

It’s sort of an ongoing conversation in the sci-fi field that builds on itself. One thing you have to feel your way around is communication across vast spaces. Even at the speed of light, intergalactic communication would take tens of thousands of years. You either say that’s a limitation, and build a story around that. Or you say, I’m going to come up with a fix around this. Science fiction writers have come up with a few ways around this and other writers adapt and pick them up.

Kids have said to me, “you got that from Star Wars” or something. I said, actually, I wrote that book before Star Wars came out.

Do you remember any specific influences of the My Teacher series?

I will tell you where one aspect of the books came from, particularly in My Teacher Fried My Brains. When Duncan has the brain fry and he’s able to receive all those messages and read what’s going through the air.

That insight came from Buckminster Fuller when I heard him speak, a decade before I wrote the book. He talked about that idea, that there was this massive amount of information flowing through the air at all times. You have your radio on and no matter where you are, you still hear information being broadcast. That idea really sank in. I thought, what would it be like if you actually could receive that without the intervention of the machine?

Aliens… do they exist or not?

I don’t think it’s possible that they don’t exist. I cannot conceive of a universe as large as this one in which we’re the only intelligent species.

If aliens do exist, what do you think they think of us?

The might not even know of us. They might be in the same place that we are. If they do know about us, I think what’s in the books is what they think of us.

The underlying theme of the My Teacher series seems to be, “Man’s brain may be bigger than his heart.” We’re capable of technological advancements that we’re not ethically ready to handle.

I really like how you put that, though I would change it slightly: “Man’s brain is bigger than he allows his heart to be.”

Has your perspective on this moral changed in 20 years with new technology?

No, actually my perspective has not changed. I would have liked it to have. When you write social commentary, you hope it will become irrelevant. We are no further ahead in world hunger—look at Darfur right now. We are still making the same mistakes. I would like to have had the humiliation of having been proved wrong.

Do you think that good enough technology could solve world problems like global hunger and war? A device that provided unlimited clean water and food? Or is the problem the people themselves?

The "Santa Claus" machine. It would be such a radical change that it’s tough to tell what would happen. Human greed remains and the attempt to control that and profit from it—there would be a huge battle as to how that technology is used. And I’m not sure which side would win.

If you've enjoyed the interview so far, head on over to part two. Its focus is more literary, the outtakes of what wasn't quite gadget-focused enough to fit here. But if you're a fan of the series, check it out.

[Bruce Coville]

The game in the video above requires each player to try to hit a projected target on the court with the Bouncing Star. As a player picks up the ball and begins to throw it on the court, the accelerometer in the ball acknowledges motion and transforms the ball's color. Using infrared, the ball can interact with the digital court; when the ball touches down or races by, the court can display a motion graphic or some other cool visual reaction.

Because of the low light in the video above, the intensity of the ball's interaction with the display was not well documented, but the idea of a ball wirelessly interacting with a digital court is pure genius. If the same principles of this Bouncing Star could be integrated into all sports using balls, we would have some amazing games to play and to watch. In Tron, the crazy Frisbee game was just a program inside of a computer, but this Tron-like tech—designed by engineers at Japan's University of Electro-Communications—could soon happen in real life. You hearing this, Nintendo? [Bouncing Star at SIGGRAPH]