>>turn the whole operation over to the Israelis or even the British
I agreed with you right up to that sentence. Airport security in Israel is a NIGHTMARE compared to the U.S. It takes longer, is more expensive, and it is more intrusive. No thanks.
And would these be the same Brits who have more surveillance cameras than citizens? No thanks.
I mean no disrespect to either of those countries, but while the U.S. may not be perfect, we're by no means that worst, or even in the running for the worst.
Settle down and stop getting all your information about the U.S. from frantic, sensationalist sources. Only a minority of us are the obese, bigoted, ignorant, nationalist fundamentalists that young europeans think we are./rant
In some of my runs through military customs (run by the seabees where I was stationed, nice people), they would toss a fake grenade or brass knuckles in every 8th or 15th bage (randomly, of course). These were trained professional, many of whom had been doing the job day in and day out, with the aid of X-ray, and they still missed most of the facsimile weapons.
I'm not saying this to disparage the fine navy inspectors, but to say that a thorough search of 200+ people's bags (450 bags) in under 30 minutes is somewhat of a unattainable goal.
My point is that no matter how nice the inspectors are, or how many degrees they have, it's nearly impossible for them to have any effect on the people who don't want to get caught.
Get rid of them. Use chemical sniffers, etc. Secure the cockpit door. Done.
In addition, you can 'engineer' software in your mom's basement. You can't exactly learn to build dams as a teenager and cobble one together in mom's basement, and then kill a bunch of people when your shoddy work crumbles. It's easy to charter traditional engineers because their projects are often visible and overseen by regulatory agencies. Homemade software is not. You might as well try to ban bad actors or bad singers.
The reason that bicycles are so much more efficient is that the entire downward motion of the leg is translated into forward motion of the bicycle. When you run, the leg must propel your body up and forward at the same time. If you made a vector graph, I think you would find the values closely match the theoretical speed of a runner vs a bicyclist. Both running and cycling require you to raise your leg, so that amount should cancel out.
Furthermore, the gearing required to allow the weights of this lamp to descend slowly enough would reduce efficiencies a great deal. You might be able to get the dynamo spinning quickly, but it will produce a miniscule amount of energy.
In this forum, we obey the laws of thermodynamics: A weight X falling distance Y at speed Z will always produce the same wH (on paper, ignoring friction), no matter how many gears or flywheels you use. Need proof? Build the lamp.
It doesn't happen in living animals. That's like saying that a child can't have brown hair, since you haven't observed it in his living parents. Change occurs between generations. And then when it does happen, the anti-intellectuals call it 'microevolution' as though there was a difference between a small change within two generations and that process repeating over thousands of generations, i.e., that the former is possible but not the latter.
I work around hydrazine every day; it's the fuel for the emergency power unit on the F-16. It's located just aft of the cockpit on the right side of the aircraft, just forward of the hydraulic reservoir and ammo drum.
We have hydrazine response teams on base, and it's true that they train like it's life or death (In the big blue suits); however, it's not something that I would freak out about. I do periodic inspections of the tank and associated valves, and I never think of it as risky. It gives off a VERY pungent ammoniacal odor and steams on contact with water (including atmospheric moisture). There are several detection systems to ensure that no one is exposed in case of a leak. In the case of the F-16, a hydrazine leak would be very obvious and the area would be evacuated. Unless you got the stuff on your skin or inhaled strong fumes, I wouldn't be too upset.
Oh, the point I was getting at originally- when F-16s crash, the hydrazine tank remains intact. It was designed that way. If it ruptured, the recovery process would be a nightmare. The tank can withstand great extremes in temperature; it cannot just vent over-pressure like other pressure tanks can.
The tanks will either land intact and inert, or will be empty by the time they hit the ground. I wouldn't worry about it. Think about all the more hazardous stuff that we come into contact with all the time- hydrogen peroxide, MEK, cyanoacrylate, cigarettes, mercury, radon, etc. etc.... You can read MSDS's from OSHA all day until you believe that toothpaste will kill you and that you need a CO2 extinguisher to put out toothpaste fires. Sometimes you get your hands dirty, and yet the world keeps turning and you don't die.
On the other hand, mammals seem much more readily adaptable to changing conditions- Many of the most successful reptiles have not changed their morphology or habitats in millions of years, leaving them at the whim of drastic changes in climate. OTOH, those same reptiles have weathered ice ages in the past. So have warm-blooded creatures. However, you are right, in my opinion. Reptiles seem to thrive in climates that are largely uninhabited by any warm-blooded animals larger than mice.
Climate change (which is really what I ought to call global warming) may have much broader effects than just temperature. Changing weather patterns may raise the mean UV index of an area, decimating frogs. Migratory species may change their routes rapidly, leaving indigenous reptiles without their expected food, food that they may depend on to keep them alive through the sparse seasons. These affects would affect indigenous mammals as well, making reptiles more palatable in the absence of migrating flamingos etc.
Other regions that were previously arid and inhospitable to mammals may become wet again, placing those reptiles much closer to the bottom of the food chain. One fox could make a huge dent in the reptile life within a certain region that previously never had the competition or predators. New reptiles might eventually move into the area, I guess. The biosphere strives to maintain its balance.
The funny thing is, I'll bet if you polled linux users, the majority of them would know that Dell offered linux systems. If I was Dell, I'd probably not go out of my way to advertise linux, either. The linux users will find it on their own, and the other users will not accidentally order the linux boxen and tell all their friends about the broken windows that Dell sent them. Or maybe they'll think it's a windows rip-off.
I guess I wasn't trying to actually imply merit based on longevity. I was just correcting the OP's argument. The OP was equating that longevity=merit but he based it on incorrect data; I simply corrected his assumptions. I'm not saying that I agree with the OP or not.
On the other hand, I think it's fairly obvious that mammals will outlive reptiles. Sorry to any reptiles here at/.
In fairness, the OP should have used one species of dinosaur compared to humans; I can't think of a (single species of) dinosaur that was around for the entire era that the OP was probably referring to (mesozoic).
A fairer analogy would be dinosaurs vs mammals (mammals win) or reptiles vs mammals (reptiles win).
>>And more than likely, the lender will laugh them off the phone. Why would they voluntarily take a smaller payment?
For the same reason that CC companies LOVE people who only pay off the interest. The interest is their profit. If you pay only interest to them for a few years, that's a few years of pure profit to them. If you turn a 30-year mortgage into a 45 year, with the same terms, then they just made 15 years of interest payments without losing the capital. If you default, they run the risk of losing the capital.
So I disagree. My gut- and my bank- both tell me to inform them of any difficulties I might have with my mortgage. Maybe the market is different where you live.
I guess I would say that if you are the geeky one in your circle, but they do not pay you for the service or even ask you, then yes, you ought to take the route you described. I agree with you.
If you are getting paid to support a network, then I think you are obliged to provide security 'counseling' to your users. Users are just as bad as an open WAP, and they are both your responsibility if that is your role in the company.
Also, I support my close friends and family because I care about them. It would be no different from me putting them out if they were on fire. They pay me back in advice on topics that I am not trained in.
Are you seriously going to just stand by and watch your best friend enter his CC number at www.realultimatehomemortgage.ru without cautioning him?
>>There isn't a need for a human like intelligence inside a computer.
I beg to differ. A video game that allowed me to hunt genuinely intelligent human targets, a la 'the most dangerous game', would be the killer app.
It could be a bloody-fanged, spine chilling, otherworldy experience, or it could be soul-crushing, depending on how well you did. Getting your ass kicked in UT2026, where the opponents are real, and smarter than you, could suck for your self-esteem. Or how about a game in which you race the AI Risk- style?
We have online games now with real humans, but this AI would not be a 14-year old. It would not think that it was in a game. It would fight to the death in new and clever ways. It would get to know you. And I don't think it's morbid to say these things; look at the state of gaming now.
If anything, it would be good training for law enforcement/soldiers//. mods...
You brought up an interesting phrase there- 'trial and error'. I think it's interesting that you bring that up, because that is precisely how babies/children DO learn before language and cognitive development allow them to absorb spoken instructions; even then, trial and error make up a huge portion of an infant's learning process.
A 'learning' AI would still use brute force/trial and error to achieve tasks early on, but would retain those lessons as experience increased. Much like people and other animals, as the system aged, it would become more skilled. Eventually, I would expect it to become almost dogmatic in its actions, much like humans, and for the same reasons- the 'ruts' formed by constantly reinforced data would drown out minor inconsistencies or new trends to the level of statistical noise.
The silver lining of this is that 1- the system would be machine-readable and writable, making duplication after the initial development trivial; and 2- 'learning' could be halted at a certain point, maybe at a point where the machine reaches its optimal reliability/efficiency, and then duplicated as a well-understood 'production' machine.
Work needs to be done on neural-net-type processing and very fast, very abundant memory in order to make this work, but everyone knows that... I'm just saying.
This is OT, but I'm curious on a personal level what it's like to be an AI researcher. I work in aerospace, myself- I can do my job all day on real things that go really fast. There may be faster things someday, but I feel like I'm on the flat part of the curve.
I think I would have trouble staying motivated in a field like aerospace if we didn't even have airplanes yet. It would be like going to work and building a wing, building a canopy, building landing gear, and just waiting and waiting for that breakthrough: "I seriously doubt we'll have bird-level flight within 30 years."
I realize that modern AI has produced tremendous rewards so far, even if they are below most people's radar. I'm glad that you chose the program you did. I guess I'm wondering if this 'human-level' AI is even something you/others are researching, or if it's something that you believe will come about when enough collateral research has been done- the 'sum is greater than the whole' approach, if you will.
I guess the big loophole that I missed earlier is the issue of trust. A 'white hat' worm or virus is basically autonomous, originating from no fixed host, and handed executive power over the system. You know how quickly every DRM scheme has been cracked. The encryption matters little, for reasons similar to the security problems of RFID chips. You need to have a central, trusted source of data. The difference is between asking update.apple.com for update info, and getting an email from 'update@apple.com' with an executable payload. I know which one I would trust more. If you add in checksums and private keys and all that stuff, you are basically looking at a centrally-administered update anyways.
It's not a bad idea in a perfect world (where we wouldn't need it anyways...), but there is a reason it has not been adopted.
I already have this- It's called software update. I can check manually for fixes, or else the system checks weekly. It asks me if I want to install the updates, and usually I wait for a while, since I'm usually in the middle of something. Many software updates, especially the ones that are security updates, require a reboot. Some updates change the functionality of the OS in subtle ways.
I would NOT be happy to have my computer restart in the middle of typing a thesis, or have my oven restart in the middle of baking a roast, etc. How about a 'security' update to your TV that now prevents it from displaying content without certain DRM? Your hot water heater reboots and then gives a "press any key to continue" error while you're at work, and your pipes freeze?
I don't see automation taking over the role of all software updates. These tools exist to make MY life easier, and thus I ought to dictate how and when they are used.
You could be right- It might very well be a poorly-written paper, or perhaps it is in fact short on substance. I wasn't trying to attest to the quality of the paper, I was simply mentioning that numbers don't always have to be nice round values in order to be meaningful.
I'm not trying to argue with you, I am just commenting.
I think mentioning standard deviation/sigma in a consumer rag would be about as useful as making subtle references to Dostoevsky's "The Idiot": You could do it, but there is little chance that your audience would 'get' it, and you would also run the risk of alienating your readers.
I haven't read the actual paper itself, but I would expect that any study worth the coffee that went into it would explain their statistics in great detail. I'm not saying that this study IS worth it's coffee, I was just saying that there might be a reasonable explanation for the 'crazy' numbers that seem to be disturbing you so much.
And don't forget: Alien vs. Predator Archie Barb Wire Blade Bullet-proof monk Constantine Conan the Barbarian The Crow Daredevil Dick Tracey The Flash Ghostrider Heavy Metal Hell Boy A History of Violence Iron Man Josie and the Pussycats Judge Dredd The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen The Mask Men in Black Monkeybone Mystery Men The Punisher The Road to Perdition The Rocketeer Sabrina the Teenage Witch Sin City Spawn Tales from the Crypt Tank Girl TMNT Timecop V for Vendetta
The list is much longer, but I left out most of the marvel stuff and films that are obviously comic-derived. The list of books that have been made into films is, however, much, MUCH longer.
Slashdot Mirror
I love that this was modded +4 insightful (as of this morning).
God bless you, slashdot. God bless every one!
-b
>>turn the whole operation over to the Israelis or even the British
/rant
I agreed with you right up to that sentence. Airport security in Israel is a NIGHTMARE compared to the U.S.
It takes longer, is more expensive, and it is more intrusive. No thanks.
And would these be the same Brits who have more surveillance cameras than citizens? No thanks.
I mean no disrespect to either of those countries, but while the U.S. may not be perfect, we're by no means that worst, or even in the running for the worst.
Settle down and stop getting all your information about the U.S. from frantic, sensationalist sources. Only a minority of us are the obese, bigoted, ignorant, nationalist fundamentalists that young europeans think we are.
-b
In some of my runs through military customs (run by the seabees where I was stationed, nice people), they would toss a fake grenade or brass knuckles in every 8th or 15th bage (randomly, of course). These were trained professional, many of whom had been doing the job day in and day out, with the aid of X-ray, and they still missed most of the facsimile weapons.
I'm not saying this to disparage the fine navy inspectors, but to say that a thorough search of 200+ people's bags (450 bags) in under 30 minutes is somewhat of a unattainable goal.
My point is that no matter how nice the inspectors are, or how many degrees they have, it's nearly impossible for them to have any effect on the people who don't want to get caught.
Get rid of them. Use chemical sniffers, etc. Secure the cockpit door. Done.
-b
But does it cost less than $0.25 per passenger?
I too have been impressed by some foreign airports. Keflavik INTL is probably the most relaxing so far.
-b
I appreciate the other thoughts in your post, but this:
>>When I feel the pressure is starting to cause situational ethics creep, I pull out Feynman's appendix...
is the best slashdot non sequitur I've ever read.
btw, I work on aircraft, too, and Feynman is a role model for me.
-b
In addition, you can 'engineer' software in your mom's basement. You can't exactly learn to build dams as a teenager and cobble one together in mom's basement, and then kill a bunch of people when your shoddy work crumbles. It's easy to charter traditional engineers because their projects are often visible and overseen by regulatory agencies. Homemade software is not. You might as well try to ban bad actors or bad singers.
-b
No, I don't think so.
The reason that bicycles are so much more efficient is that the entire downward motion of the leg is translated into forward motion of the bicycle. When you run, the leg must propel your body up and forward at the same time. If you made a vector graph, I think you would find the values closely match the theoretical speed of a runner vs a bicyclist. Both running and cycling require you to raise your leg, so that amount should cancel out.
Furthermore, the gearing required to allow the weights of this lamp to descend slowly enough would reduce efficiencies a great deal. You might be able to get the dynamo spinning quickly, but it will produce a miniscule amount of energy.
In this forum, we obey the laws of thermodynamics: A weight X falling distance Y at speed Z will always produce the same wH (on paper, ignoring friction), no matter how many gears or flywheels you use. Need proof? Build the lamp.
-b
>>haven't observed it in living animals
It doesn't happen in living animals.
That's like saying that a child can't have brown hair, since you haven't observed it in his living parents. Change occurs between generations. And then when it does happen, the anti-intellectuals call it 'microevolution' as though there was a difference between a small change within two generations and that process repeating over thousands of generations, i.e., that the former is possible but not the latter.
-b
I work around hydrazine every day; it's the fuel for the emergency power unit on the F-16. It's located just aft of the cockpit on the right side of the aircraft, just forward of the hydraulic reservoir and ammo drum.
We have hydrazine response teams on base, and it's true that they train like it's life or death (In the big blue suits); however, it's not something that I would freak out about. I do periodic inspections of the tank and associated valves, and I never think of it as risky. It gives off a VERY pungent ammoniacal odor and steams on contact with water (including atmospheric moisture). There are several detection systems to ensure that no one is exposed in case of a leak. In the case of the F-16, a hydrazine leak would be very obvious and the area would be evacuated. Unless you got the stuff on your skin or inhaled strong fumes, I wouldn't be too upset.
Oh, the point I was getting at originally- when F-16s crash, the hydrazine tank remains intact. It was designed that way. If it ruptured, the recovery process would be a nightmare. The tank can withstand great extremes in temperature; it cannot just vent over-pressure like other pressure tanks can.
The tanks will either land intact and inert, or will be empty by the time they hit the ground. I wouldn't worry about it. Think about all the more hazardous stuff that we come into contact with all the time- hydrogen peroxide, MEK, cyanoacrylate, cigarettes, mercury, radon, etc. etc.... You can read MSDS's from OSHA all day until you believe that toothpaste will kill you and that you need a CO2 extinguisher to put out toothpaste fires. Sometimes you get your hands dirty, and yet the world keeps turning and you don't die.
-b
That is interesting; I had not thought of that.
On the other hand, mammals seem much more readily adaptable to changing conditions- Many of the most successful reptiles have not changed their morphology or habitats in millions of years, leaving them at the whim of drastic changes in climate. OTOH, those same reptiles have weathered ice ages in the past. So have warm-blooded creatures. However, you are right, in my opinion. Reptiles seem to thrive in climates that are largely uninhabited by any warm-blooded animals larger than mice.
Climate change (which is really what I ought to call global warming) may have much broader effects than just temperature. Changing weather patterns may raise the mean UV index of an area, decimating frogs. Migratory species may change their routes rapidly, leaving indigenous reptiles without their expected food, food that they may depend on to keep them alive through the sparse seasons. These affects would affect indigenous mammals as well, making reptiles more palatable in the absence of migrating flamingos etc.
Other regions that were previously arid and inhospitable to mammals may become wet again, placing those reptiles much closer to the bottom of the food chain. One fox could make a huge dent in the reptile life within a certain region that previously never had the competition or predators. New reptiles might eventually move into the area, I guess. The biosphere strives to maintain its balance.
I am not an ecologist, of course.
I'm glad you brought that up,
-b
Wow- A slashdotter who spelled 'hobbyist' correctly. You, sir, can have a virtual beer on me.
Everyone else take note.
-b
That was a quote from the film, "The Big Lebowski." It was meant to be a joke, not a social critique.
Funny movie, btw.
-b
The funny thing is, I'll bet if you polled linux users, the majority of them would know that Dell offered linux systems. If I was Dell, I'd probably not go out of my way to advertise linux, either. The linux users will find it on their own, and the other users will not accidentally order the linux boxen and tell all their friends about the broken windows that Dell sent them. Or maybe they'll think it's a windows rip-off.
-b
I guess I wasn't trying to actually imply merit based on longevity. I was just correcting the OP's argument. The OP was equating that longevity=merit but he based it on incorrect data; I simply corrected his assumptions. I'm not saying that I agree with the OP or not.
/.
On the other hand, I think it's fairly obvious that mammals will outlive reptiles. Sorry to any reptiles here at
-b
In fairness, the OP should have used one species of dinosaur compared to humans; I can't think of a (single species of) dinosaur that was around for the entire era that the OP was probably referring to (mesozoic).
A fairer analogy would be dinosaurs vs mammals (mammals win) or reptiles vs mammals (reptiles win).
-b
>>And more than likely, the lender will laugh them off the phone. Why would they voluntarily take a smaller payment?
For the same reason that CC companies LOVE people who only pay off the interest. The interest is their profit. If you pay only interest to them for a few years, that's a few years of pure profit to them. If you turn a 30-year mortgage into a 45 year, with the same terms, then they just made 15 years of interest payments without losing the capital. If you default, they run the risk of losing the capital.
So I disagree. My gut- and my bank- both tell me to inform them of any difficulties I might have with my mortgage. Maybe the market is different where you live.
-b
I guess I would say that if you are the geeky one in your circle, but they do not pay you for the service or even ask you, then yes, you ought to take the route you described. I agree with you.
If you are getting paid to support a network, then I think you are obliged to provide security 'counseling' to your users. Users are just as bad as an open WAP, and they are both your responsibility if that is your role in the company.
Also, I support my close friends and family because I care about them. It would be no different from me putting them out if they were on fire. They pay me back in advice on topics that I am not trained in.
Are you seriously going to just stand by and watch your best friend enter his CC number at www.realultimatehomemortgage.ru without cautioning him?
-b
>>There isn't a need for a human like intelligence inside a computer.
I beg to differ. A video game that allowed me to hunt genuinely intelligent human targets, a la 'the most dangerous game', would be the killer app.
It could be a bloody-fanged, spine chilling, otherworldy experience, or it could be soul-crushing, depending on how well you did. Getting your ass kicked in UT2026, where the opponents are real, and smarter than you, could suck for your self-esteem. Or how about a game in which you race the AI Risk- style?
We have online games now with real humans, but this AI would not be a 14-year old. It would not think that it was in a game. It would fight to the death in new and clever ways. It would get to know you. And I don't think it's morbid to say these things; look at the state of gaming now.
If anything, it would be good training for law enforcement/soldiers//. mods...
-b
You brought up an interesting phrase there- 'trial and error'. I think it's interesting that you bring that up, because that is precisely how babies/children DO learn before language and cognitive development allow them to absorb spoken instructions; even then, trial and error make up a huge portion of an infant's learning process.
A 'learning' AI would still use brute force/trial and error to achieve tasks early on, but would retain those lessons as experience increased. Much like people and other animals, as the system aged, it would become more skilled. Eventually, I would expect it to become almost dogmatic in its actions, much like humans, and for the same reasons- the 'ruts' formed by constantly reinforced data would drown out minor inconsistencies or new trends to the level of statistical noise.
The silver lining of this is that 1- the system would be machine-readable and writable, making duplication after the initial development trivial; and 2- 'learning' could be halted at a certain point, maybe at a point where the machine reaches its optimal reliability/efficiency, and then duplicated as a well-understood 'production' machine.
Work needs to be done on neural-net-type processing and very fast, very abundant memory in order to make this work, but everyone knows that... I'm just saying.
-b
This is OT, but I'm curious on a personal level what it's like to be an AI researcher. I work in aerospace, myself- I can do my job all day on real things that go really fast. There may be faster things someday, but I feel like I'm on the flat part of the curve.
I think I would have trouble staying motivated in a field like aerospace if we didn't even have airplanes yet. It would be like going to work and building a wing, building a canopy, building landing gear, and just waiting and waiting for that breakthrough: "I seriously doubt we'll have bird-level flight within 30 years."
I realize that modern AI has produced tremendous rewards so far, even if they are below most people's radar. I'm glad that you chose the program you did. I guess I'm wondering if this 'human-level' AI is even something you/others are researching, or if it's something that you believe will come about when enough collateral research has been done- the 'sum is greater than the whole' approach, if you will.
Best,
-b
I guess the big loophole that I missed earlier is the issue of trust. A 'white hat' worm or virus is basically autonomous, originating from no fixed host, and handed executive power over the system. You know how quickly every DRM scheme has been cracked. The encryption matters little, for reasons similar to the security problems of RFID chips. You need to have a central, trusted source of data. The difference is between asking update.apple.com for update info, and getting an email from 'update@apple.com' with an executable payload. I know which one I would trust more. If you add in checksums and private keys and all that stuff, you are basically looking at a centrally-administered update anyways.
It's not a bad idea in a perfect world (where we wouldn't need it anyways...), but there is a reason it has not been adopted.
-b
I already have this- It's called software update. I can check manually for fixes, or else the system checks weekly. It asks me if I want to install the updates, and usually I wait for a while, since I'm usually in the middle of something. Many software updates, especially the ones that are security updates, require a reboot. Some updates change the functionality of the OS in subtle ways.
I would NOT be happy to have my computer restart in the middle of typing a thesis, or have my oven restart in the middle of baking a roast, etc. How about a 'security' update to your TV that now prevents it from displaying content without certain DRM? Your hot water heater reboots and then gives a "press any key to continue" error while you're at work, and your pipes freeze?
I don't see automation taking over the role of all software updates. These tools exist to make MY life easier, and thus I ought to dictate how and when they are used.
-b
You could be right- It might very well be a poorly-written paper, or perhaps it is in fact short on substance. I wasn't trying to attest to the quality of the paper, I was simply mentioning that numbers don't always have to be nice round values in order to be meaningful.
I'm not trying to argue with you, I am just commenting.
-b
I think mentioning standard deviation/sigma in a consumer rag would be about as useful as making subtle references to Dostoevsky's "The Idiot": You could do it, but there is little chance that your audience would 'get' it, and you would also run the risk of alienating your readers.
I haven't read the actual paper itself, but I would expect that any study worth the coffee that went into it would explain their statistics in great detail. I'm not saying that this study IS worth it's coffee, I was just saying that there might be a reasonable explanation for the 'crazy' numbers that seem to be disturbing you so much.
-b
And don't forget:
Alien vs. Predator
Archie
Barb Wire
Blade
Bullet-proof monk
Constantine
Conan the Barbarian
The Crow
Daredevil
Dick Tracey
The Flash
Ghostrider
Heavy Metal
Hell Boy
A History of Violence
Iron Man
Josie and the Pussycats
Judge Dredd
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
The Mask
Men in Black
Monkeybone
Mystery Men
The Punisher
The Road to Perdition
The Rocketeer
Sabrina the Teenage Witch
Sin City
Spawn
Tales from the Crypt
Tank Girl
TMNT
Timecop
V for Vendetta
The list is much longer, but I left out most of the marvel stuff and films that are obviously comic-derived.
The list of books that have been made into films is, however, much, MUCH longer.
-b