As we learned from 2010, HAL was not defective.  HAL was not given all of
the information required to complete the given mission.  Simply put, HAL was
lied to and didn't understand what being lied to is.

Kind of like how HP so quickly decided that the HP3000 could not be sold to
the existing customer base.  At the same time, HP made no effort to go
outside the current client base.  What was the final straw that broke that
camel's back?  What was the signal that said, "STOP"?  Maybe if we were told
the entire history behind the decision, we would know to save MPE.

Little food for thought.

-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Bill Cadier
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 5:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: OT: MPE 2001

Greg writes

> 2001 is the year that the new hp announced EOL for the 3000. This list has
> seen posts discussing the underlying mythology of 2001, the movie. How
about
> 2001 as a metaphor for the discontinuance of MPE? They misunderstand HAL,
> and tried to kill it, even though there are those who cannot live without
> it. That would make CSY the ship, right? I guess this would make Winston
> Prather our Dave. Isn't it in 2010 that they bring HAL back to life?
>
> If we can avoid the usual bitterness and vitriole, we could probably have
> quite a bit of fun with this idea...
>
> Greg Stigers
> http://www.cgiusa.com

But... wasn't HAL defective? Killing off the crew and all that?

I suppose the monolith would be the enlightenment of open MPE :-)

Bill

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *