S01.E02: Chestnut

[Netfoot]

3 minutes ago, arc said:

My problem with this line of thought is that it's a pretty short line from there to thinking that other people don't really feel pain. "They're acting." "It's an appropriate response to a stimulus."

Well, I feel there is a great difference between "my alarm clock feels no pain, so I can throw it across the room when it rings" and "my dog feels no pain, so I can kick it when it barks."  The line between is anything but short.  

[arc]

20 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

Well, I feel there is a great difference between "my alarm clock feels no pain, so I can throw it across the room when it rings" and "my dog feels no pain, so I can kick it when it barks."  The line between is anything but short.  

Why would you think the host is closer to an alarm clock than a dog? A modern host, unlike the old time models in deep storage, seems to be every bit as intelligent as a human.

[Netfoot]

Just now, arc said:

Why would you think the host is closer to an alarm clock than a dog? A modern host, unlike the old time models in deep storage, seems to be every bit as intelligent as a human.

Their intelligence is not in question.  They are machines, like a clock, and probably designed not to feel pain.  Whereas a dog is an animal, and definitely feels pain.  So, if you can smash up a machine without remorse, it really doesn't matter what type of machine it is.  However, to assume that it would be just as easy to remorselessly smash up a dog or a human, is an immense step.  One that could only be taken easily by someone with major antisocial issues to start with.  

[izabella]

This show will never convince me that something made by a 3D printer out of silicone strands and computer technology is any way feeling biological pain like humans.  Not possible!  Unless the robots magically morph into biological entities that heal themselves when they are cut or sick, I'm not believing it. 

If this show tries to make us believe silicone and chips can start to feel biological pain and emotions, this is likely not the show for me as it is too much of a leap for suspension of disbelief for me.  I can believe the robots might run amok, but not because they are becoming human.

[scrb]

It's cool visually to see those strands come out and get weaved into muscles and so forth.

But the opening credits for Humans looks good too, where they show artificial skin being cultured, it appears.

[Gobi]

On 10/13/2016 at 2:21 PM, arc said:

 

The changing room host's question is a key theme for the show! "If you can’t tell, does it matter?"

Very good point, and  one that goes to the heart of the matter for me. In that scene, neither William nor the audience knows if the greeter is a host or human. She could well be human, perhaps prostitution is legal in Westworld (as in Nevada). Or she could be a host with a programmed awareness of what she is.

On the surface, the question is a way of reassuring someone who might be squeamish about sex with robots ( which can be seen simply as advanced inflatable sex dolls).

The implications, however, go much deeper. If you can't tell the difference, is it morally acceptable to rape and kill hosts?

[Netfoot]

25 minutes ago, Gobi said:

If you can't tell the difference, is it morally acceptable to rape and kill hosts?

If they are not hosts, you won't be able to kill or rape them.  If they are hosts, then it isn't rape or murder.

[Gobi]

11 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

If they are not hosts, you won't be able to kill or rape them.  If they are hosts, then it isn't rape or murder.

My question, though, is that if raping and killing hosts is indistinguishable from raping and killing humans is it morally acceptable? I think the show is going to address that question.

[arc]

I totally agree with Gobi. That's exactly what I was saying when I said that question was the theme of the show.

Also, this Westworld has some history of guest (human) deaths, I believe. Shoot, imagine if one just went out camping in the wilderness and fell off a cliff.  If the only protection against guest-on-guest violence is that nearby hosts will take the hit via that good Samaritan instinct, what happens when it's just guests out there in the wilderness with no robots besides robot horses and robot snakes? There's bound to be cases where there's just no host close enough that's capable of intervening to protect a guest from another. Sure, the guns might not kill but one could use other means.

So given that that's about all we can reasonably expect for guest protection (plus the hosts' own inability to harm living things)... you really can rape and kill people in Westworld. It's no different from doing it without a gun in the real world. There's no Westworld magic that makes a Westworld rock less able to crush a human skull than a regular rock. So it really is still down to morality, not a magical death limiter.

(OK, fine, if you have a Westworld gun on you, you could use that as an easy host/guest discernment device. Let's say you lost it fording a river yesterday.)

[Netfoot]

38 minutes ago, Gobi said:

if raping and killing hosts is indistinguishable from raping and killing humans is it morally acceptable?

But it is always possible to distinguish, isn't it?  A real person would object in terms that would be unequivocal.  

Is it acceptable for a vegetarian to eat soya "meat", if it is indistinguishable from real meat?  They would actually know what they'd bought, after all.

[arc]

27 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

But it is always possible to distinguish, isn't it?  A real person would object in terms that would be unequivocal.  

How were the hosts in the village pleading with TMIB for their lives equivocal?

[Netfoot]

3 minutes ago, arc said:

How were the hosts in the village pleading with TMIB for their lives equivocal?

They weren't saying "You put one finger on me, asshole, and my lawyer will take everything you got, including your house and your pension, and my son will push an AK-74 up your ass and tickle your prostate!  I'm not paying $40K per day to put up with this shit!"  I think that would have been fairly unequivocal, don't you?

[arc]

I guess if people break character, that works within the game, but what about with hosts like the ones who welcome the people at the monorail, or just escapees like Maeve?

[revbfc]

I'm starting to get a serious Parsifal vibes from this show (in a "dark mirror" kind of way).

Robert Ford is totally a Klingsor type with his magical garden of illusion that seduces all who enter.  And Ed Harris would be Parsifal, though it would seem he's in too deep.

Edited October 15, 2016 by revbfc

[ennui]

24 minutes ago, arc said:

I guess if people break character, that works within the game, but what about with hosts like the ones who welcome the people at the monorail, or just escapees like Maeve?

Break character? These are people on vacation. They're still the same, except for the clothing. 

Also, I keep seeing comments about a game. Westworld is a resort. MiB is the only one playing a game. Most of the other guests are there to get their jollies.

[Netfoot]

The greeter host at the monorail is still a host.  As is Maeve.  Therefore, just clock-radios, and incapable of being raped.  If a guest were mistakenly taken for a host at the monorail, or anywhere else, they would be just as able break character and make it known that they were human, as anywhere else in the park.

[kokapetl]

The androids probably don't feel pain. They act human, but stuff Iike shock from waking up in surgery, or having their throat slit, losing 3 buckets of blood and being scalped doesn't affect them like it would a human. I'd say the androids programming aims to have each android fulfill its objectives, which is mostly to entertain guests. A bullet wound automatically triggers bleeding and wailing, they go through the motions, but there would be a reorganization and reprioritization of objectives designed to minimize being further occupied with these diversions. They are programmed to be good hosts.  

[Gobi]

1 hour ago, Netfoot said:

They weren't saying "You put one finger on me, asshole, and my lawyer will take everything you got, including your house and your pension, and my son will push an AK-74 up your ass and tickle your prostate!  I'm not paying $40K per day to put up with this shit!"  I think that would have been fairly unequivocal, don't you?

My point, which apparently wasn't clear enough, is that even though the guests know they are raping and killing robots, if the experience is no different from raping and killing humans, is it morally defensible?

[Gobi]

45 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

The greeter host at the monorail is still a host.  As is Maeve.  Therefore, just clock-radios, and incapable of being raped.  If a guest were mistakenly taken for a host at the monorail, or anywhere else, they would be just as able break character and make it known that they were human, as anywhere else in the park.

We don't know whether the greeter at the monorail was a host or not.

If the hosts are, or are becoming, sentient/self-aware, but their programming limits what actions they can take, then they can be raped. If they are incapable of refusing consent, then they are unable to consent. A human prisoner or slave may, because of fear of reparations, "consent" to sex; it is still rape. These are the sort of issues that I expect the show to explore. If it doesn't, then this is just an exploitation show, depicting rape and murder as entertainment because it is just "clock radios" being raped and murdered.

[Netfoot]

I got your point. And by way of response, I asked in return, is it morally defensible for a vegetarian to eat fake-meat?  Which they know is not produced from animal products, but which is otherwise indistinguishable from a big hunk of cow?  Why wouldn't it be?  If compassion for animals is your reason for not eating them, then eating synthetic meat should be perfectly acceptable.

Why is rape and murder unacceptable?  Because other people would suffer as a result of such behaviour.  But if we're talking about a machine which can't experience suffering in the first place, and has nothing like free will, and therefore technically can't be raped or murdered...

[arc]

54 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

Therefore, just clock-radios, and incapable of being raped.

That doesn't seem to be the viewpoint of the show creators. I guess where I'm coming from philosophically it is that there's a continuum, not a binary divide. And even if the hosts of these kinds of experiences - going back to relatively primitive videogames - were way on the "it's OK to go on a rampage against them" side of the continuum, the hosts we see in this show, at this time, are for me well on the other side.

 

Just now, Netfoot said:

But if we're talking about a machine which can't experience suffering in the first place, and has nothing like free will, and therefore technically can't be raped or murdered...

Maybe this is also part of the disagreement then. I think these hosts can experience suffering and do have free will. (Yes, they can be affected by outside stimuli that reprograms them. But I could be intoxicated without my consent or knowledge and that kind of crude reprogramming has no bearing on whether I have free will.)

[Netfoot]

1 minute ago, arc said:

I think these hosts can experience suffering and do have free will.

Perhaps.   But that is a different case.  The original discussion was about hosts whose original design was such as to simulate suffering, but not actually suffer it.  And as I said, the hosts we see are (or some of them are) beginning to awaken, and develop the ability to experience genuine pain, genuine anger, etc.  But none of the humans know this!  So, the discussion on  the behaviour of the humans has been regarding their treatment of unfeeling machines, who only appear to be human, and only simulate genuine feelings.  

As for the monorail greeter, if she were a human, she would be equally able to protest against unwanted advances, as any guest in the park.  If she (and Maeve) are unfeeling robots, then they are as incapable of being raped and murdered as the clock-radio.  

For the purpose of the discussion, it doesn't matter if the bots are becoming, sentient/self-aware or not.  What matters is that the humans that interact with them are not aware of this!  Therefore their actions/behaviour will be governed by the facts, as they see them.  

Of course, their becoming sentient will affect the way we should treat them.  But the original question was about how we should treat machines.  Even machines which are exquisite fakes, but machines never the less.

If you go to someone's house for dinner, is it wrong for them to serve you lamb chops?  Of course it's OK for them to serve you meat, if you never told them you were a vegetarian!  If they knew and still served you meat, that would be completely different.

[arc]

17 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

But none of the humans know this!  

The first-timer couple in the pilot and William in this ep, I feel like their confusion in various circumstances is largely because they do not believe the hosts are unfeeling machines. Even despite what they've undoubtedly been told about the park.

[DarkRaichu]

4 hours ago, Gobi said:

We don't know whether the greeter at the monorail was a host or not.

Didn't she say to William something along the line of "All hosts are here for you, myself included" before offering William to stay longer in the changing room?  I thought that was pretty clear cut

Edited October 15, 2016 by DarkRaichu

[Gobi]

6 hours ago, DarkRaichu said:

Didn't she say to William something along the line of "All hosts are here for you, myself included" before offering William to stay longer in the changing room?  I thought that was pretty clear cut

You could be right, I don't recall that, but she might have.

[Netfoot]

8 hours ago, DarkRaichu said:

I thought that was pretty clear cut

I don't recall that being said, although it very well may have been.  But I thought that it as pretty clear cut that she was a host.  Why would the park hire real women to prostitute themselves* when hosts are available?

*I suppose she could be a real human employee who simply took an instant lust to William, and made advances to him.  But it seems a bit of a stretch that this would randomly happen, just as the guest we are observing came along.

[Gobi]

14 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

I don't recall that being said, although it very well may have been.  But I thought that it as pretty clear cut that she was a host.  Why would the park hire real women to prostitute themselves* when hosts are available?

*I suppose she could be a real human employee who simply took an instant lust to William, and made advances to him.  But it seems a bit of a stretch that this would randomly happen, just as the guest we are observing came along.

As the greeters need to have specific knowledge about what the park is and what the hosts are, this may have been found to have adverse effects, hence humans. Inside the park, the hosts think they are living in the old west. We've already seen that memories can adversely affect their performance, perhaps knowing their true nature does the same.  When asked, she dodged the question. My feeling is that she is probably a host, but that it was deliberately left ambiguous.

[Milburn Stone]

On 10/10/2016 at 5:12 PM, IDFfm0870 said:

I had only known Thandie Newton from her ER role previously, where I didn't like her (character) at all. What a stunning performance as Maeve.

Agree. When the techs "dialed up" her perceptiveness/empathy 1.5%, damn if her performance as Maeve didn't exhibit 1.5% more perceptiveness/empathy. That's some finely calibrated acting technique right there.

[Shanna Marie]

18 hours ago, Gobi said:

My point, which apparently wasn't clear enough, is that even though the guests know they are raping and killing robots, if the experience is no different from raping and killing humans, is it morally defensible?

You've also got to consider what effect this has on the human guests. Can you rape or murder someone who in every respect gives you the same experience you'd get from doing the same thing to a human, even if you know intellectually that they're not human, without it having some kind of effect on the psyche? There's already a fair amount of debate about the potential effects of first-person shooter type videogames, with some believing that they're a safe catharsis and a way of releasing aggression and some believing that they can desensitize people against violence and make it easier to take the violence into the real world, and there's no ethical way to test this in a controlled setting. Can you rape and murder a being that responds to the action exactly the way a human would without being affected in some way? It seems to me that even if it's not doing harm to the robot or causing pain, it would affect the human doing it.

[ennui]

19 hours ago, arc said:

The first-timer couple in the pilot and William in this ep, I feel like their confusion in various circumstances is largely because they do not believe the hosts are unfeeling machines. Even despite what they've undoubtedly been told about the park.

No, when the couple in the first episode is out on their trail ride and the sheriff malfunctions, the wife says "there's something wrong with it, I'm going back." She's only willing to play along to a certain point.

I'm a little concerned for clock radios, after reading this section. Clock radio lives matter! 

[Bongo Fury]

3 hours ago, ennui said:

I'm a little concerned for clock radios, after reading this section. Clock radio lives matter! 

Well I punch mine square in the snooze button several times a day, 5 days a week, and I'm proud to admit that it makes me quite happy to do so.

[Netfoot]

49 minutes ago, Bongo Fury said:

Well I punch mine square in the snooze button several times a day, 5 days a week, and I'm proud to admit that it makes me quite happy to do so.

You beast!  Surely that isn't morally defensible?  

[Bongo Fury]

25 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

You beast!  Surely that isn't morally defensible?  

Morals? We don't need no steenking morals.

[Gobi]

Upon rewatching this episode (which I recommend doing), I was struck by something that did not fully hit me the first time: Did we see TMIB kill a real person?

At the cantina before the second gun fight, a lot of attention is paid to him reloading his gun, with what may be a different type of bullet. He then kills Lawrence's cousins. One  of the last hosts killed runs into the scene in the background, shooting wildly. He hides behind an adobe wall, and is visibly frightened. He doesn't look like the other hosts, he's much more clean cut. Of course, this could just be his programming/costuming. TMIB then shoots him  through the wall, with the bullet going through him, as well. Now, maybe this is a hollow wall for set design, but even with safety devices any bullet that can go through even a plaster wall is going to at least sting, and could easily take out an eye. There must be instances where humans shoot at each other, accidentally or not. Was that another guest that TMIB killed? Looked that way to me.

Before this gunfight, we see a quick scene where one of the park runners asks if they should slow down TMIB. This implies that there is a procedure to keep guests from going on a non-stop killing spree.

TMIB then reloads again, this time putting in a large shell, like a shotgun shell, that I suspect is the safety device. He says he isn't going back home anymore. Presumably, the park has a procedure for removing guests who try to stay beyond what they paid for. Has TMIB been smuggling in real bullets to keep them from removing  him?

[Bongo Fury]

53 minutes ago, Gobi said:

... TMIB then reloads again, this time putting in a large shell, like a shotgun shell, ...

TMiB has some sort of combination gun with two barrels, over and under. The top barrel is the revolver part and the lower barrel is a single shot that uses that oversized bullet. At first I thought it was a shotgun shell, but it was some sort of large caliber round capable of penetrating the adobe wall (which would be a lot softer than a stone wall).

Edited October 16, 2016 by Bongo Fury

[numbnut]

2 hours ago, Gobi said:

Upon rewatching this episode (which I recommend doing), I was struck by something that did not fully hit me the first time: Did we see TMIB kill a real person?

At the cantina before the second gun fight, a lot of attention is paid to him reloading his gun, with what may be a different type of bullet. He then kills Lawrence's cousins. One  of the last hosts killed runs into the scene in the background, shooting wildly. He hides behind an adobe wall, and is visibly frightened. He doesn't look like the other hosts, he's much more clean cut. Of course, this could just be his programming/costuming. TMIB then shoots him  through the wall, with the bullet going through him, as well. Now, maybe this is a hollow wall for set design, but even with safety devices any bullet that can go through even a plaster wall is going to at least sting, and could easily take out an eye. There must be instances where humans shoot at each other, accidentally or not. Was that another guest that TMIB killed? Looked that way to me.

I was wondering why they kept showing a closeup of his gun and bullets because his killing didn't seem odd until he shot through that wall. The guns that the guests are given can't kill people (William's friend tries to illustrate this point in the restaurant). Special bullets would be a nightmare, but I don't think MiB killed a guest -- the killing of a guest would be a big dramatic moment for the show (just like in the movie), so I don't think we've seen it yet. The park offers all Western personas, including "clean-cut" types, and the robots can be "frightened" in a gunfight -- the milk guy was panicky before being killed by Teddy; the gravedigger was fleeing when killed by MiB; Lawrence's family was scared, etc. I think the park would be alerted as soon as a guest was killed (just like MiB's shooting spree was reported).

Edited October 16, 2016 by numbnut

[Maximum Taco]

4 hours ago, Gobi said:

Upon rewatching this episode (which I recommend doing), I was struck by something that did not fully hit me the first time: Did we see TMIB kill a real person?

At the cantina before the second gun fight, a lot of attention is paid to him reloading his gun, with what may be a different type of bullet. He then kills Lawrence's cousins. One  of the last hosts killed runs into the scene in the background, shooting wildly. He hides behind an adobe wall, and is visibly frightened. He doesn't look like the other hosts, he's much more clean cut. Of course, this could just be his programming/costuming. TMIB then shoots him  through the wall, with the bullet going through him, as well. Now, maybe this is a hollow wall for set design, but even with safety devices any bullet that can go through even a plaster wall is going to at least sting, and could easily take out an eye. There must be instances where humans shoot at each other, accidentally or not. Was that another guest that TMIB killed? Looked that way to me.

Before this gunfight, we see a quick scene where one of the park runners asks if they should slow down TMIB. This implies that there is a procedure to keep guests from going on a non-stop killing spree.

TMIB then reloads again, this time putting in a large shell, like a shotgun shell, that I suspect is the safety device. He says he isn't going back home anymore. Presumably, the park has a procedure for removing guests who try to stay beyond what they paid for. Has TMIB been smuggling in real bullets to keep them from removing  him?

I don't think so.

The host who died may have looked different, but that's the point. We all (or at least a good deal of us) thought Teddy was a guest too, until he suddenly wasn't. You aren't supposed to be able to tell the difference, until they die.

I don't pretend to know the mechanics of the special guns/bullets used in Westworld, but it doesn't seem like they even hurt the guests. It doesn't sting or anything, it just doesn't hit the guest. When Teddy fires on the MIB he doesn't flinch, his CLOTHES don't even move. It actually looks like the bullet almost vaporizes on contact (or even just before.) I think it's as simple as guns CANNOT hurt the guests.

Now that doesn't mean a guest can't die. I can't see a way for them to stop a knife to the gut, or a rock to the back of the head, or a broken bottle to the jugular. At least not without someone intervening, like the reported "Good Samaritan" reflex the hosts have. But I don't think the guns can hurt them. Now maybe the MIB is smuggling in guns/bullets, but I don't see how he could. The only way in/out of the park seems to be the train (and maybe the maze, but he hasn't found that yet.) and I'm positive they are very adamant you don't bring anything into the park.

Anyway, when a guest dies it's going to be a big deal IMO. Not something you look back on from a past episode. It's going to be a "holy shit" moment when it's very evident everything is going pear-shaped.

Edited October 16, 2016 by Maximum Taco

[seacliffsal]

This is so weird for me-I was bored throughout the episode, but after reading everyone's comments I realize that I need to rewatch the episode before tonight's.  Hopefully I'll understand more of the subtleties that I must have missed on the first watch.  

[maraleia]

Not sure where to put this but people here are wondering about Sidse's performance as Theresa and I thought I'd share a scene from the 3rd season of Borgen where she speaks both Danish and English to give you a sense of her range. There must be a reason why she has that clipped voice pattern in this show.

Really the entire Borgen show is wonderful. I highly recommend checking it out.

[Netfoot]

TMIB is using a revolver which is a nine-shooter, rather than the more traditional six-shooter.

But notice that the center of the cylinder also has a large-bore chamber which would hols a much bigger cartridge.

Don't know what this is supposed to be.  A wadcutter round?  Some sort of discarding sabot?  I think a snake-load would be a good choice, but who knows?  At any rate, it fires out of the cylinder, through a secondary barrel slung under the main barrel.

In order to fire this round when the trigger is squeezed, (as opposed to one of the regular nine rounds) the tip of the hammer of the pistol is pivoted down, where it will strike more centrally, rather than at the rim of the cylinder.

Now, as for penetrating the wall, you should bear in mind that the standard .45 Colt would easily shoot right through a cow or a horse, and out the other side.  It would penetrate six pine boards of 7/8 inch thickness.  So, whatever that extra-sized load was (unless it was a snake-load), it isn't hard to see it penetrating a few inches of mud and straw.

[Bill1978]

13 hours ago, Gobi said:

Upon rewatching this episode (which I recommend doing), I was struck by something that did not fully hit me the first time: Did we see TMIB kill a real person?

At the cantina before the second gun fight, a lot of attention is paid to him reloading his gun, with what may be a different type of bullet. He then kills Lawrence's cousins. One  of the last hosts killed runs into the scene in the background, shooting wildly. He hides behind an adobe wall, and is visibly frightened. He doesn't look like the other hosts, he's much more clean cut. Of course, this could just be his programming/costuming. TMIB then shoots him  through the wall, with the bullet going through him, as well. Now, maybe this is a hollow wall for set design, but even with safety devices any bullet that can go through even a plaster wall is going to at least sting, and could easily take out an eye. There must be instances where humans shoot at each other, accidentally or not. Was that another guest that TMIB killed? Looked that way to me.

Before this gunfight, we see a quick scene where one of the park runners asks if they should slow down TMIB. This implies that there is a procedure to keep guests from going on a non-stop killing spree.

TMIB then reloads again, this time putting in a large shell, like a shotgun shell, that I suspect is the safety device. He says he isn't going back home anymore. Presumably, the park has a procedure for removing guests who try to stay beyond what they paid for. Has TMIB been smuggling in real bullets to keep them from removing  him?

I confess when I first watched the episode (actually I have only watched it once) I thought the guy hiding behind the wall that was killed was the same guy we saw reject Maeve's advances at the saloon. At the time, the acting seemed to imply a guest who was caught in the middle of a story. He seemed to be panicking and talking himself up that he could save the day by shooting someone cause it's just a game. I have no idea what he was saying and I haven't had time to go back and compare the rock guy with the saloon guy. But I initially thought a human had been killed as collateral damage.

Happy to be proven wrong as I usually make a mess of these shows.

[Gobi]

43 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

TMIB is using a revolver which is a nine-shooter, rather than the more traditional six-shooter.

But notice that the center of the cylinder also has a large-bore chamber which would hols a much bigger cartridge.

Don't know what this is supposed to be.  A wadcutter round?  Some sort of discarding sabot?  I think a snake-load would be a good choice, but who knows?  At any rate, it fires out of the cylinder, through a secondary barrel slung under the main barrel.

In order to fire this round when the trigger is squeezed, (as opposed to one of the regular nine rounds) the tip of the hammer of the pistol is pivoted down, where it will strike more centrally, rather than at the rim of the cylinder.

Now, as for penetrating the wall, you should bear in mind that the standard .45 Colt would easily shoot right through a cow or a horse, and out the other side.  It would penetrate six pine boards of 7/8 inch thickness.  So, whatever that extra-sized load was (unless it was a snake-load), it isn't hard to see it penetrating a few inches of mud and straw.

Which is my main point. Whether or not he killed a person already (probably not), he is clearly carrying ammo that lets him do so. 

[arc]

4 hours ago, Netfoot said:

TMIB is using a revolver which is a nine-shooter, rather than the more traditional six-shooter.

[...]

Don't know what this is supposed to be.  A wadcutter round?  Some sort of discarding sabot?  I think a snake-load would be a good choice, but who knows?  At any rate, it fires out of the cylinder, through a secondary barrel slung under the main barrel.

I saw on a different forum that it's a "Lemat". Check out this video. Short version, it's a nine-shooter with a muzzle-loading shotgun mounted underneath. And I don't think the guy behind the wall was shot with a shotgun. (edit: but I was wrong. As the youtube video explains, that's exactly what Harris did by toggling the hammer to fire the shotgun shell instead, which he did to shoot that guy.  Man, those Westworld guns are hella smart to know they can punch through walls and therefore, that the person on the other side is a host and not a guest.)

BTW, last thought before I settle in to watch the new episode: it's kind of interesting that the Delos techs didn't take down Maeve with the wireless data connection that they have to all hosts... instead they injected her with something.

Edited October 17, 2016 by arc

[DarkRaichu]

On 10/15/2016 at 7:46 AM, Gobi said:

You could be right, I don't recall that, but she might have.

Spoiler tags just in case :)

Spoiler

A flashback scene in episode 3 confirmed this.  She was 1 of the first hosts. Don't blink or you might miss her.

[Gobi]

1 minute ago, DarkRaichu said:

Spoiler tags just in case :)

  Reveal hidden contents

A flashback scene in episode 3 confirmed this.  She was 1 of the first hosts. Don't blink or you might miss her.

Yes, I caught that.

[gatopretoNYC]

On 10/17/2016 at 1:38 PM, DarkRaichu said:

Spoiler tags just in case :)

  Hide contents

A flashback scene in episode 3 confirmed this.  She was 1 of the first hosts. Don't blink or you might miss her.

Oh! I'm going to have to re-watch episode 3, and try to catch that.

[Gobi]

5 hours ago, gatopretoNYC said:

Oh! I'm going to have to re-watch episode 3, and try to catch that.

Look for this:

 

Spoiler

She's carrying a parasol and walks from the  left side of  the screen to the right, and turns her head towards the camera. It's an outside scene  where the hosts are training.

[numbnut]

On 10/16/2016 at 10:26 PM, arc said:

BTW, last thought before I settle in to watch the new episode: it's kind of interesting that the Delos techs didn't take down Maeve with the wireless data connection that they have to all hosts... instead they injected her with something.

I think that's because they were med staff and not security staff or supervisors (like the Hemsworth dude). They also wanted to keep Maeve's escape a secret, and I'm guessing an electronic shutdown could be traceable or logged somehow.

[Gobi]

1 hour ago, numbnut said:

I think that's because they were med staff and not security staff or supervisors (like the Hemsworth dude). They also wanted to keep Maeve's escape a secret, and I'm guessing an electronic shutdown could be traceable or logged somehow.

They also might have thought that her sleep mode wasn't working, and didn't want to take any chances.

[okerry]

On 10/14/2016 at 8:10 PM, Gobi said:

 

On 10/15/2016 at 10:18 AM, Milburn Stone said:

Agree. When the techs "dialed up" her perceptiveness/empathy 1.5%, damn if her performance as Maeve didn't exhibit 1.5% more perceptiveness/empathy. That's some finely calibrated acting technique right there.

Between the actors and whoever's coaching them, the skills of those playing the hosts are really amazing. The scene between Ford and Delores's father was just astounding. Don't think I've seen anything quite like that.

On 10/15/2016 at 3:00 PM, Shanna Marie said:

You've also got to consider what effect this has on the human guests. Can you rape and murder a being that responds to the action exactly the way a human would without being affected in some way? It seems to me that even if it's not doing harm to the robot or causing pain, it would affect the human doing it.

To me, whether it matters to the host or not really isn't the question. It will matter to You. And if You get off on causing pain and torment to what looks and feels to you like another human being, maybe You should go home and rethink your life.