"Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology, often in a futuristic setting. Exploring the consequences of such innovations is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".
Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possibilities. It is similar to, but differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).

Your review has made me want to see it. If only to work out if De Niro has more than two scenes. Without him we'd be wondering who the hell Manning was. Well, we still do, but De Niro's name sells the film.

I don't know much about AD whatever but it sounds like it was a label created and applied in the States. I think the sociology of that is very interesting. Doctors start applying the label and before you know it you have largely socially created condition. And then the drugs are ingested...

re the concept of the film we'll certainly all be modding our minds and bodies in the new few hundred years if you believe the futurists. Will that make people less stupid? I'd like to think so.

Get out of the queue, you wonderful piece of *futuristic technology!

>> ^dag:

Exactly- I like to think that I'm a little bit sensitive to plate tectonics of societal change - my futurist sense is tingling off the scale at the moment and telling me that we're at one of those cusps where everything can change.
OK, maybe the state isn't going to be replaced by online communities. I may be viewing things through my own personal bias (and delusions of grandeur ahem ) but something BIG is happening - and my best guess is that the state is due to be seriously downgraded in the future to be replaced with -- something.
>> ^Fusionaut:
At least our Governments will be more accountable from now on. Even if wikileaks is forced to shut down something new will step into its place. It's nice to know that we have access to the truth now. It's hard to say if current governments will be replaced by something new within our lifetime but it certainly is time for a paradigm shift of some sort.



I think you're on to something there dag. With that, though, comes the QM's of clenched teeth. The birthing pains of this kind of order might be great indeed, which I fear.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Exactly- I like to think that I'm a little bit sensitive to plate tectonics of societal change - my futurist sense is tingling off the scale at the moment and telling me that we're at one of those cusps where everything can change.

OK, maybe the state isn't going to be replaced by online communities. I may be viewing things through my own personal bias (and delusions of grandeur *ahem*) but something BIG is happening - and my best guess is that the state is due to be seriously downgraded in the future to be replaced with -- something.

>> ^Fusionaut:

At least our Governments will be more accountable from now on. Even if wikileaks is forced to shut down something new will step into its place. It's nice to know that we have access to the truth now. It's hard to say if current governments will be replaced by something new within our lifetime but it certainly is time for a paradigm shift of some sort.

I'm continually surprised by how well the LCARS design has dated. Even looking back at TNG season 1, it still looks like a darned futuristic interface.

thanks kp!

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
While there's no doubt that Kurzweil is extremely knowledgeable about some things, such as computer technology, he makes the same mistake that many highly intelligent people do: Thinking that being smart in one field of expertise makes you somehow smart in almost any other field that you're interested in. Futurists are about the worst who fall into this category.

Don't misunderstand me. There's nothing wrong with making predictions about tomorrow's technology. We all do it from time to time. However most of us know that our knowledge of technology and science is very limited at best, so our predictions shouldn't be taken as prophesies handed down from God. I don't see many astrophysicists making predictions about when a cure for the common cold will be found, not do I see many meteorologists predicting when a commercially viable fusion reactor will go into production. But that doesn't intimidate most futurists. Everything is up for grabs. Never let one's lack of knowledge stand in the way of making wild-ass speculations predictions.

Anyone who doesn't approach the prophesies of futurists with serious skepticism probably should find another hobby that tends to discourage critical thinking.

While there's no doubt that Kurzweil is extremely knowledgeable about some things, such as computer technology, he makes the same mistake that many highly intelligent people do: Thinking that being smart in one field of expertise makes you somehow smart in almost any other field that you're interested in. Futurists are about the worst who fall into this category.

Don't misunderstand me. There's nothing wrong with making predictions about tomorrow's technology. We all do it from time to time. However most of us know that our knowledge of technology and science is very limited at best, so our predictions shouldn't be taken as prophesies handed down from God. I don't see many astrophysicists making predictions about when a cure for the common cold will be found, nor do I see many meteorologists predicting when a commercially viable fusion reactor will go into production. But that doesn't intimidate most futurists. Everything is up for grabs. Never let one's lack of knowledge stand in the way of making wild-ass speculations predictions.

Anyone who doesn't approach the prophesies of futurists with serious skepticism probably should find another hobby that tends to discourage critical thinking.

Deus Ex one was awesome in it's epic narrative / story telling about global conspiracy, illuminati, MJ12 etc.

But the sequels seem to be increasingly shallow focussed on being a futuristic version of "Thief"

>> ^Deano:

What I liked about Robocop was its futuristic take on a world where life is cheap, everything is for sale and the corporations have take over - oh god.


Futuristic should be in quotes

What I liked about Robocop was its futuristic take on a world where life is cheap, everything is for sale and the corporations have take over - oh god.

What's "modern" then? I thought the Reach beta was enormous fun. It is after all a futuristic fantasy so it's refreshing to not have the grey, grim and virtually identical FPS cul-de-sacs of Modern Warfare, Battlefield etc, etc.

For me nothing is better than sticking someone and then whirling away to headshot someone. So many different things can happen and often do.

>> ^braindonut:

Sorry, Halo. After OSD or whatever, yer dead to me.
I might care about the series again if they implement some modern FPS game mechanics. Otherwise, I really have no interest in going back in time 10 years.

Futuristic space stations really look like roulette wheels.

>> ^dag:

It's funny because it's true.


It hurts because it's true.

Very enjoyable to watch. Reminded me of when I used to play Neocron a lot, got that futuristic cyberpunk atmosphere.