Talk:The Last Enemy (TV series)

Untitled
Where did detailed information for unaired episodes originate from? 90.192.86.109 (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * DVD rips of the episodes have shown up on BitTorrent, so one possibility is that somebody watched those and wrote them up. Daedae (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Presumably the rips are from TV - so how did they rip something that hasn't even been aired. The only way this could have been posted is if it leaked from the BBC, if tapes were stolen or if someone hacked into the BBC.--Sabrown100 (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The detailed info originated from www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo


 * Indeed the episode descriptions are copied from there:     . Kanguole (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"showing some signs of OCD" - presumably obsessive-compulsive disorder, but I think the acronym might need explaining for some readers.83.170.105.48 (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not spell it out? obsessive-compulsive disorder instead of OCD?  206.53.197.24 (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this a horror show?
Given the completely screwed up nature of the world this is set in, the invincible nature of the 'monster', the implied low-IQ of the entire population (in reality the government can't keep up with the people's use of technology, NOT the other way round), the 'it's never going to get better' ending, and the obvious intention for the viewer to find many of the themes depicted abhorant- is this a horror story? Cause those are all familiar hall marks of any horror film. ANTIcarrot (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Plausibility
Any such database would be (a) a vandal-magnet; (b) subject to all the problems that beset computers (lightning down the connections, incompatibility etc); (c) Murphy's Law as applied to computers (the military computer which decided it was meant to spot "pictures with clouds in them" rather than "pictures with tanks in them"; (d) arouse contrariness, conspiracy theorists, fan clubs and all the other minor "us and them" groupings; (e) subject those attempting to make use of the information to data overload on bizarre subjects and false positives (the crossword setter in WWII who thought up, by accident, the names of several ongoing military operations. There are, no doubt, sevaral more reasons against. And - what if the computer decides that "MP/senior figure X" meets all the criteria of being a "destabilising force" - based on a collection of unconnected statements?

Also it is probably more difficult than suggested to target specific groups - eg the Yorkshire people identified by DNA as having ancestors from completely different parts of the Roman Empire, being soldiers on Hadrian's Wall. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A few more points

Whether or not acting out of criminal intent people will find ways of working around such systems - even without resorting to the Data Protection Act, human rights legislation and similar - finding out information by pursuing tangents etc. As with Heisenberg's Principle, the subjects change their behaviour because they are being looked at.

Computers in general tend to go wrong - and for TIA to "work" the entire population of the globe would have to be monitored (with all the complications that arise from considering the potential interactions of some 6.5 billion people - six degrees of separation and all.

It is said that the military regularly prepares for the last war: the same would apply in fields such as this - how often would the "wrong question" in general be asked?

"It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious." Jackiespeel (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is fiction. It takes place in a near future, when technology is slightly more advanced than it is today.  Rather than debate plausibility of a story in a fictional world, I should ask the following:  What does this have to do with the article?  Are you suggesting a section on Plausibility be added? Can you find good sources about the plausibility of this story?  (By the way, don't confuse the Heisenberg uncertainty principle with the Observer effect. ) 206.53.197.24 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot
"this apparent virus is shown to be in fact an ethnicity-specific side-effect of an experiment in producing an internal, injected and unfakeable bio-tag, a side-effect which affects Arabs but not Caucasians a"

Is this part of the summary accurate?

1) It did affect both Arabs and Caucasians. But, it was fatal to Arabs and not healthy Caucasians.

2) The wording makes it seem that the (nanotechnology) tag alone had this effect. (From watching on PBS in fall of 2008,) I thought that the ethnicity-specific effects were the result of another experiment, that was merged with the bio-tag one.  206.53.197.24 (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Arabs, but not Caucasians". Arabs are of Caucasian race. Does the programme actually say that? Varlaam (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not the place for that particular discussion, Varlaam. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely it is. Is this error in the article alone? Or does it originate in the programme?
 * If it comes from the show, then it is appropriate for the article to point out that the show is full of crap.
 * The function of an encyclopedia is not to promulgate an absurd notion concocted by some ridiculous TV rubbish without comment, and thus implicitly endorse same.
 * Eh? Varlaam (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Varlaam, we have specific guiding principles (plus policies and guidelines) that tell us that we are specifically prohibited from adding our own commentary and opinions. Like any encyclopedia, it seeks the neutral ground and stays there. We operate on the princicples that if someone notable or reliable didn't say something in a verifiable manner, it isn't worth reading. Your opinion (or my opinion, or that of any other editor/contributor here) has no value in our articles. That may seem like a very hard (and harsh) truth of how things work here, but is The Way Things Are™.
 * While it is true that there are many different skin colors within the caucasian race, in common parlance, Caucasian refers to folk who are considered 'white' by other races. I believe that is how the term is used in this article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)