Wirt writes:
>Not all movies are clearly of equal caliber. "2001" is literature in a way
>that very few movies are. But more than that, it's technically accurate. Gene
>Siskel, the movie critic for the Chicago Tribune, once sat next to Neil
>Armstrong (the other Neil Armstrong, not the one from Robelle) and asked him
>what it was really like on the moon. Armstrong asked if he'd seen "2001".
>Siskel said, "Sure." "Well," Armstrong said, "that's pretty much what it was
>like."

If Gene Siskel sits beside Neil Armstrong (not me) then can you ask Gene
to ask Neil (not me) what his e-mail address is, because I have a lot of
e-mail for him! :)


>
>However, where the movie fails is in its unbridled optimism of the
>development of artificially intelligent devices. In the near 30 years since
>its production, we've progressed no further than we were. All that we're
Actually I disagree with you here. The CBC, Canada's National Radio system
did a show on how "close" we really are. The only area where we fall short
is the infamous "lip reading" scene, where HAL discovers that the two
astronauts that are awake are planning to turn him off.

I think we have many of the components of a HAL-like computer, but no real
strong reason to build one. We at one time may have wanted to build a
Colossus (book by DF Jones and movie called the Forbin Project) but since
much of the nuclear threat in the world is diminishing, this is probably
no longer necessary.

This is way too deep for a Monday morning.

Neil "back to programming" Armstrong
The one from Robelle !