Slashdot Mirror
HAL 9000 on the Auction Block
pompous windbag writes "The Cinerama 160 degree lens used to both play and film the viewpoint of the famous paranoid processor. He's now up for sale on eBay, for the starting bid of just $150,000(USD).
This looks like the real deal, complete with letters of authenticity and some extra goodies like
"...an original '2001' movie program, a copy of the original script, two issues of American Cinematographer Magazines on the production of '2001' published in 1968, and the movie '2010' published in 1985. Also included is videotape showing how HAL 9000 originated and was used by Stanley Kubrick.' "
So it was the same piece of equipment used for both the brilliant 2000 and the not-so-brilliant 2010. Was it also used for the 1999 Apple television advertisement, or was that done with stock footage or a HAL lookalike?
From the auction text, it looks like the only actual part of the "computer" is the lens that was used as the "eye" of HAL. Seems like a lot of money for just that one piece, and the rest of the crap they throw in just seems like they're trying to clear out someone's closet.
you can probably get an ibm 7094 for cheaper... that, of course, was the first computer to "sing" daisy as programmed by john kelly and carol lockbaum in 1961.
you can get the audio file of the original here.
2 1337 4 u!
A worthwhile read on the legacy of the lens used in the film can be found here.
It seems a man named Kirk Wooster from Georgia claims to have the lens. Note the auction is listed as taking place in Woodstock, GA.
I knew this was a dupe, just not from /. This was first posted on June 24, 2003 on Blue's News. The original eBay posting has now expired, but I remember that it was the same auction. Either it didn't sell last time, or the owner has tried this phishing expedition before. ;-) I'll reserve judgement.
I think you mean "Bicycle Built for Two".
HAL was an acronym for "Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer"? That HAL +1 letter=IBM thing was just a myth. Just some trivia.
I love 2001, probably more then any other movie (maybe bladerunner...) But what bugs me is how many people blame HAL for what happened on the trip to Jupiter.
Note that you can pick any two from 2001 (the movie), 2001 (the novel), 2010 (the movie) and 2010 (the novel), and there will be inconsistencies between them.
For example, the 2010 movie opens with a quotation from the 2001 novel ("Oh my God! It's full of stars"), which *never* appeared in the 2001 movie. (OTOH, this doesn't contradict the events of 2001; especially since the first movie starts getting very opaque at that stage).
It's debatable *what* was meant in the 2001 movie. Personally, I suspect (and having watched a documentary, suspect even more) that the makers didn't know what was happening in 2001; 2010 (both movie and film) seem to extrapolate from the 2001 novel- but as mentioned above, 2001 the novel is *not* the same as the movie (there are significant plot differences).
Have I confused everyone yet?
Anyway; what I'm saying is- the "explanation" of Hal's behaviour given in 2010 might *not* apply to the movie 2001. Bear in mind that Kubrick would have had his own ideas too.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
In Wrath of Kahn, watch the Genesis Effect scene in slow motion. One month into rendering, they realized that they had set it up to fly through a mountain. And they could not re-render much of the scene without delaying the film. So, they kludged it. A notch grows in the mountain as you approach it.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
here's the MP3
http://audio.textfiles.com/sounds/daisy.mp3
It is so impressive that two people did this in 1961! I bet there aren't 10 people alive today that could reproduce this coding feat with the same hardware. Take away gdb and msvc and most programmers crumble...
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
HAL has been in Windows since NT :)
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy