Talk:Series 1000

From Terminator Wiki

Contents 1 Speciality: Mimicry 2 Series 1xxx 3 What you mean, we? 4 Information Source 5 Chronometer 6 Alien Contruct? 7 Nano Tech misinformation 8 T-1000 vs T-1001

Speciality: Mimicry

Given that the T-1000 can absorb information via physical contact, couldn't it possibly copy a person's entire personality in this same way? Granted, it sounds a bit far fetched, but when you think about it; why couldn't a T-1000 do something like this? From what we've seen, the T-1000 is the most advanced infiltrator to date, more so than the T-X even. Darth Raivon 22:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Impossible, no, far fetched, yes. If I remember correctly TS-300 (btw, are they canon?) do just that, only retrieving memories/personality takes some time in a lab. So, by touch - unlikely. As for T-1000 vs T-X, T-1000 might be able to infiltrate better (floors, walls or *cough cough* urinals, hell, that scene was so *wrong*), but I think it would be no match for T-X in combat. As far as we know, it might be actually much easier for T-X to reprogram a T-1000 than a T-8xx. --Lilianne Blaze 23:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct, the TS-300 don't "copy" personalities, they are uploaded with the designed duplicate personalities in the lab they are created at. It requires taking the human captive and "mapping" the personality engram directly. Not a stealthy prospect. The Series 1000 ability to analyse their environment comes from the "hands on" scene in the cop cruiser to interface with the Police net, and the deleted scene of the T-1000 investigating John's room. Nothing in that has anything to do with personality duplication. That requires observation of a subject.Fulongamer 00:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Good points all around. What I was getting at is the T-1001's ability to perfectly replicate Catherine Weaver's personality (here assuming that Catherine was a real person once), but like you said, the T-1001 could've been stalking her for a very long time, recording her interactions. Darth Raivon 07:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Series 1xxx

Okay, with this new information about Weaver, are we really going to re-enact the 800/8xx debacle and spin off a separate Series 1001 page, or roll it all up under the Series 1000 aka (Series 1xxx) with individual terminators differentiated between Terminator 2: Judgment Day and TSCC "Samson & Delilah"?Fulongamer 18:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and is hell-bent on the annhialation of mankind one corporate exec at a time, unless there is some earth-shaking differnce between the T-1000 and the T-1001 I seriously think we can compartmentalize everything on the single Series page.Fulongamer 18:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait and see how the show handles it? We really haven't gotten much information on the new series yet... --Kanamekun 19:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It will be easy to parse off the sub-model bits as required (as done with the 850 and 888) should the T-1001 develop as so sufficiently distinct to merit it's own article (beyond the character page). Until then we can just [[T-1000|T-1001]] her notations.Fulongamer 20:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds good. I hope the TV show sheds some light on the T-1000! That was always kinda a mysterious terminator series... --Kanamekun 20:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. For the moment (up to episode 202) it seems to me the main (only?) difference is a major software upgrade. I just don't see T1000 from T2 as capable of leading a corporation. --Lilianne Blaze 02:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What you mean, we?

This page uses the word "we" a lot:

"We have discovered that the T-1000 is constructed using a new technology..."

"We have, indeed, backed up this hypothesis..."

Who is supposed to be the author of this article? -- Danny (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I get the feeling that it might have been copied from elsewhere, since it reads like an in-universe briefing. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I get that feeling too, in which case it should be rewritten. -- Ozzel 07:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I've fixed sections to more of a historical approach, but it will still need rearranging to prevent any instances of copyright infringement if that is the case. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Information Source

This article seems ridiculously detailed. From how Skynet "builds" T-1000's to the Resistance finding out how it works. Where did this information come from? A novel? How would the Resistance find the prototype and experiment on it? I like the theories posted about it, but they're just theories without sources! - doubleofive 19:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yah agreed, I have no idea! How about throwing cite tags on everything that's unsourced and if nobody offers any sources... we remove it from the article after a week or so? --Kanamekun 19:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll add some cite's to see what happens. - doubleofive 19:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I bet it's just fanfic. It's been 8 months. Time to remove it?

I seem to recall these scenes shown in a promo for the T2 Extreme DVD. The menu of the DVD seems to show this if you want to consider it Terminator canon. - Nx1701g 23:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have more details on the T2 Extreme DVD source? I'd like to start deleting the uncited material, but don't want to throw out something from the T2 DVD... --Kanamekun 17:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Chronometer

"Unlike the T-800, the T-1000 was not equipped with an internal chronometer as Skynet had deemed time irrelevant to this unit"

Source please? It didn't have a clock? Now this is just silly :/ Lilianne Blaze 13:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This fact was stated by the T-800 and in several of the novels. The T-1000 has an infinate lifespan, so time is a concept that is irrelevant to it. sec_1971 21:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah what a cool find. Mind adding the quote to the article? That'd really help! --Kanamekun 21:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Still it's silly. Having no concept of time would imply a total inability to plan ahead. It's either a complete bull, or a great oversimplification. Especially since one of the themes in the movies are basically race against time, across time. --Lilianne Blaze 02:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Alien Contruct?

I've read that the T-1000 was capable of overriding its programming and become a rogue with independent desires, which was why Skynet created so few. Is there any evidence to support this? Darth Raivon 22:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah neat. If true, that would explain how Catherine Weaver came to head up the terminator rebellion against Skynet! --Kanamekun 20:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This comes from the novels. I recall reading it in one of the T2 novelizations and it was touched upon by Clea Bennet in T2: Rising Storm. If I recall correctly in the T2 novelization its said when the T-1000 is first introduced. In the T2 Rising Storm novel it was said when Clea is working on trying to build a T-1000 with modern technology. -Nx1701g 23:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Clea was pretty certain that she could not reasonably be expected to produce a viable T-1000. Her efforts were directed towards accellerating the development within the timeline by laying the groundwork and "inventing" the root technology "intellimetal", which also has the apparent benefit of being highly carcinogenic.Fulongamer 16:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nano Tech misinformation

I read the info for this page and realized a common error in the concept of nanotech. The page reads as follows.

Originally, theories on the nature of the T-1000's construction stated that the T-1000 utilized nano-technology in order to alter its physical appearance. This meant that the T-1000 was not merely one machine, but millions of microscopic machines linked together in a cohesion subroutine. However, the Resistance found that this was not the case. It was discovered that the T-1000 was constructed using a new technology developed by Skynet. Each molecule of the T-1000 was a primitive, miniaturized version of the total machine, and every molecule had programmed into it the blueprints for all the parts needed for the construction of the whole T-1000.

That is still nanotech. In popular culture, nanotech is microscopic robots, but TRUE nanotech is bases on the Quantum theory of infinite smallness. The idea that molocules are not the smallest things in the universe and there is physical mass in the universe smaller than a hydrogen atom. An example would be a storage devise the size of a human cell that can store all the information collected in human history.

Microscopic nano robots (or nanites) is a byproduct of nanothech theory, not nanotech in and of themselves. The above explination on how the T-1000 works is still nanotech and should be worded differently. I'm not one to just simply edit Wiki pages without support from others so if anyone else agrees with me and no one else wants to edit it I guess I will. I just think it should be worded differently to account for both explinations being nanotech.

I'm not entirely agreeing with you on what does and what does not constitute nanotechnology. Basically anything operating on the scale of 0.000000001 meters is nanotechnology, something smaller than a hydrogen atom is much, much smaller than nanotechnology. I do, however, agree that the section on the T-1000 construction is very wrong and that it is in fact nanotechnology. This of course means that it has to be rewritten. Cuco81^Talk 22:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

T-1000 vs T-1001

Can somebody sxplain what is the difference between the two models? And also how come there is no seperate article for the T-1001 series? Snake311 04:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

So far there is no differentiation between the capabilities of the two models. The TV series just wanted their own number. Until more is defined by the show either in episode information, producer's blogs, or (eventually) the S2 DVDs, there is no reason to spur off a complete "Series 1001" page, where to date the unique characteristics can be identified oon the character (since she is the only one) page for Catherine Weaver. If at some point it becomes completely clear that there is an absolute need to create a Series 1001 page we certainly can. But the baseline Series 1000 (or as it should be renamed, the 1xxx) page and the individual character pages suffice for now. We don't want to repeat the Series 800, 8xx, 8-whatever ad infinitum debacle.Fulongamer 04:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In my mind, the #1 reason is that the T-1001 name has never been confirmed on the show itself. It was only mentioned in an interview with Josh Friedman. Once the series is named and assuming it has separate powers than the T-1000, I'd be very comfortable creating a page for it.

Fulongamer, I've heard you mention before that the Series 8xx page is/was a debacle. I thought that page was somewhat useful, in that some information was replicated across the T-800/850/888 pages. I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts around why the page is a debacle. We could definitely make some changes to address your concerns. Let me know... --Kanamekun 04:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean more of how the whole painful process of the generation of the multiple pages came about, not the 8xx page in particular. How long did it take to determine the need for the 8xx base page in the first place? A more deliberate measured approach to such an end state for the 1000, 1001, and 1xxx can be adopted of one simply learns from the lesons of the past.Fulongamer 04:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Weaver is able to assume the form of at least two things at once (her human body and her "pet eel") seems to be new. The T-1000's polyalloy when broken apart didn't show the ability to do anything more complicated than pulling itself back together. — Red XIV ^(talk) 21:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparantly like a chameleon if left alone and unable to perform its primary objective to rejoin its main body it mimics its surroundings i.e. floor pattern, however there was nothing to suggest it was capable of independant action like the Weaver eel, or that it was capable of independant decision making or complicated mimicry such as a moving aquatic creature. Watcherzero 23:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)