Why did they control Jurassic Park mainly w/ computers?

What else whould they have used? A cattle prod and a whip?

They did think of them as cattle. and the little ones cute until they ate the little girl.
Damn, I’m lagging, no more type tonight. Ta!

I think zoos are cruel. So fantasy dinosaur zoos are cruel too.

That’s just such a weird question. Why did you ask it? I’m still pondering an answer. I may not be able to sleep tonight.

I would have used this .

It worked much better than the trained monkeys.

Because they used electrical fences to contain the animals. Unlike solid barriers, like stone walls, their operation must be ensured at all times and that requires constant monitoring. The only alternative would have been stationing people around the clock at every segment of the fence system to watch the fences and considering the size of the entire complex, the costs and coordination efforts would have been astronomical. The only efficient alternative to that was using electronics and computerised monitoring of the fence system in a central location and controlling the system with the computers in addition to monitoring it was the logical choice.

And by the way, the computers did not fail, the system was intentionally deactivated by an employee who had the necessary security clearance, who wanted to make money by smuggling out saurian DNA but died on the way out so he could not reactivate the system.

Yeah they really should of paid that guy a little more money, and I dunno had more than 1 person who knew how to operate their personalized computer software. Oh well.

They had, but in that night they were running on minimum staff. But they should have least made it so that deactivating the fences requires at least 2 people. Even on TNG deactivating the security protocols on the Holodeck required 2 senior officers.

The fact that it was a computer system is fine. Especially when electrical fences were needed. They should have physically isolated the fence computers. No connection to the web or other computers whatsoever. Keep the fence surveillance and monitoring system on the main computers, but require a physical key to access the actual computers controlling the function of the fences. No chance of hacking, no dual authorization protocols needed. Only give physical keys to those trusted.

BAR is better. Or I’m thinking bonnie and clyde

JP was a morality play—the characters, the plot, all of it. The innocent survived, the guilty died.

The computers & dinos were simply pawns.

Removed by Me

@erichw1504
The Park Computers were running on Unix

@erichw1504 “Lex: It’s a UNIX system! I know this!”

though the 3d interface was ridiculous.

@ragingloli & @grumpyfish Oooohhh, forgot about that. Thanks for correcting me. I removed my response.

“It worked much better than the trained monkeys.”
I think trained monkeys are a great idea!

Just imagine Jurassic Park full of trained monkeys. Now that is a Movie worth paying to see.

Well, the computers didn’t really fail…. what failed is their lack of suspicion for hackers in their company. They trusted a fat dude simply because he had knowledge they didn’t. Probably would have been safer to train themselves then a trust a fat dude (not saying fat dudes can’t be trusted though, haha!).

@Glow To better restate what you’re saying:

- Single points of failure, and single points of knowledge are both to be avoided.
– In critical systems, avoiding a single “master” system having complete control
– Best to have two different vendors develop systems that watch each other, if you absolutely must not fail.

(Removed the random comments about “fat dudes” which adds nothing to the discussion, and is mildly offensive to my 33 BMI)

It wouldn’t be a cool movie if the security was infallible and didn’t allow the dinosaurs to run around and slaughter everyone.

@Symbeline That’s a good point. You usually can’t think too hard when watching most movies these days. It will ruin the fun.

@erichw1504 I learned this phenomenon from watching slasher movies. It’s gotta be orchestrated in a way that failure occurs, usually with dumb people, so that the fun may be had. I dunno if that’s good or bad but it certainly works.

@Symbeline: Couldn’t a good writer have the characters do all the right, intelligent things and still have things go bad (or, from the audience’s point of view, good)? Wouldn’t that be terrifying, the thought that no matter what you do to avoid your fate it remains inescapable. Sort of like Final Destination, but with a more compelling plot and characters that are a bit deeper instead of standard cannon-fodder horror film fair. Just a thought.

@Dan_DeColumna I certainly agree, it would make the movie itself a lot more scary if it seemed a bit more realistic. I’m sure there’s some like that out there. Just saying, it’s an evident formula in the horror industry which I find to often be reflected in other films. (Or at least the slasher subgenre.)