The BEST adaptation of an Asimov story I have saw was a VHS Video "who-done-it" game based on Caves of Steel. It actually was decent for "B" grade actors and "direct to video" special effects of the 80's.
"Bicentennial Man was descent as far as movie adaptations go"
You have very low expectations. I'm not saying it wasn't a bad "MOVIE". It was entertaining and a kind of "corn-ball" that made me think Buster Keaton. I do not feel I wasted my time or money watching it way-back-when (tm).
However, the movie was not what I would call a good adaptation of Heinlein's story. But, we can have a difference of opinion. It appears we both thought the movie as OK...
"Asimov has a shit loads material. So does Heilein."
Asimov? Because they did so well with 'I Robot' and "Bicentennial Man", right? And The Movie About Night Falling That Shall Be Unnamed? I've no trust in ANYONE producing a good Asimov film *OR* a TV series.
And Heinlein? Do you not remember Starship Troopers? Or Puppet Masters? At least the latter had Donald Sutherland (and he nailed the 'old man') but it otherwise sucked. At least "All you zombies" had a "respectable" attempt last year with Predestination so maybe all is not lost here...
You said nothing that counters what I said. Pushing new medications in to adoption isn't cheap. How is that not PART of getting meds to market? How useful would it be if a new med came out but wasn't really adopted?
The goal of "big pharma" is to make money. They do that by providing effective medications and push the line of new and greater quality treatments. If you remove their ability to make money you will remove them from making new and greater quality treatments. This isn't complicated and making money isn't 'evil' by nature.
"How do you think they get to a $65,000/dose cancer treatment? "Don't worry your insurance will cover it"."
That's disingenuous. Are you sure that $65000/dose price doesn't include not only the cost of research/trials/fda approval of THIS particular drug but also the countless other drugs that didn't live up to expectations?
My mother-in-law takes a fairly new med for her leukemia -- it's about $10,000 for 14 days and has been very effective. That drug would have never made it to market if "big pharma" didn't expect to turn a profit (including cover OTHER research projects). This is *NOT* a bad thing. In about another decade or so the cost will dramatically come down.
I'm not saying that this is the BEST model for research. What I'm saying it is a good and effective model.
"I've been running my own mail server for a year or two now,"
Unless I'm reading this wrong the article indicates that the problem is NEW email servers. From TFA:
IPs not previously used to send email typically don’t have any reputation built up in our systems. As a result, emails from new IPs are more likely to experience deliverability issues. Once the IP has built a reputation for not sending spam, Outlook.com will typically allow for a better email delivery experience.
Now, I've no idea if that is true or not. I hosted my own email until around 2010 (since the 1990s) then moved to google apps. The only issue I had is when I changed IPs when I moved and the static I got were previously "unallocated" space and most hosts marked them as spam for just being an IP in that group (never mind SPF records). Took about 1 or 2 months before 'filters' got the clue and fixed the rules.
So if you weren't having any issues maybe it's because you've been up and running for a while. Or maybe the user was getting flagged for some other reason and the only "info" they found as to why before they gave up was from Microsoft.
Most employers like to have "face time" with their employees. And by "face time" I don't mean video conferencing. Yes, there are many firms that will hire out of state -- or out of city. But many of those who are willing to do that just jump the ocean and go over seas where it's orders of magnitude cheaper.
So, while it SHOULDN'T matter where you live for a job like the OP, it, in fact, does matter over all.
I know of many 50+ IT guys who end up working help desks for a fraction of their last wage before they were laid off or let go. I expect sooner or later I'll be let go, too and I'll be in a similar situation. I just need to pay off my home first (which isn't too far off). Then I can afford to live on a fraction of what I currently make. I've lived "house poor" (tossing everything I could in to my home to pay it off early) so when the job-reaper comes knocking I don't lose everything.
"So you own the audiobook but Amazon can't give it to you because of licensing issues? Will all due respect, that doesn't sound like ownership to me. I use Audible every day, and I've never encountered this, but the ramifications longer-term are pretty shitty"
Yes they are (shitty). Don't think I'm happy with it, because I'm not -- but I got 4 book credits out of it (about $100-$150 worth of audio books) and I've since converted each one of my titles to MP3 and burned them to DVDs. I consider it a lesson learned that cost me nothing but some of my time and bandwidth. In fact, the books lost were low-cost and the credits went to books ~$50 a pop.
My kindle is e-ink. His is a fire. My point was that he and my daughter don't have a strong preference either way. Why? Maybe cause they are younger and grew up with it.
I "own" the audiobook. It still appears in my "library" and if the ever re-license it I'll be able to download it again. If I still had the file Audible would authenticate it for me and I could listen to it -- or if I had converted it to some other format I'd still have it. I just can't download it again because THEY can't provide it.
I have quite a collection of audio books. I've had an audible subscription years before amazon borg'd them. And I agree with you completely.
The only thing I've discovered is that a few of the books I "owned" vanished from their available titles and I can't re-download (license expired was the reason I was given). They basically give me a free book credit every time that's happened (4 times out of about 300 books).
Thanks. I'm not skimming or "speed reading" and 4500 is faster than I've tested -- but not by a lot.
A related ability I have is to glance at a page and "find" what I'm looking for (if I 'kind of' know what I'm looking for) almost instantly. It comes in handy for research or reviewing technical material. Example: I went through a 800 page PDF on a particular bar-code reader looking for "something" that might explain an issue we were having where the hardware would fail to read the barcodes. Found it about half way through in about 30 seconds just fast-clicking the "next page" button. CCD on the barcode scanner required greater ambient light than what was available at the location. I really cant explain what I do -- but it's not 'reading'. The stuff on the page just pops in my head (not all of it, though).
Heh... my co-worker referred to me as 'jhonny-five' and joked about my need for 'input' forever after he saw me do that.
See there? That's one of the things I LIKE. Slowing things down. I have a quasi-useless super power: I can read ungodly fast. I can down a 300 page book in 15-20 mins if I let myself. But I don't ENJOY it any where near as much. How can I run through an emotional chapter in 10 seconds? Or something humorous? There's no time for reflection. I just 'digest' the material.
Maybe thats it -- I might just naturally start flying through the text on an e-reader.
I'll agree that e-ink is much better than a regular display for reading on an e-reader. Tablets like the fire or ipad just bug me more. Maybe it's the glassy screen.
However, I still prefer the paper in my hands.
That said, my wife has been trying to move me to a reader for a while. Books take up quite a bit of space.
I've never been fond of e-readers. I like the feel of the book in my hand. I've tried a few (starting with the Sony way-back-when) and moved to a kindle. I ended up still buying paper-books.
Maybe it's my age (upper 40's), maybe it's nostalgia or maybe it's something else entirely but I ENJOY it more when I'm really flipping pages.
My kids on the other hand have no trouble. My son likes paper books more but has no issue reading from his kindle-fire.
Note: I've over 3000 books dating from the 1930s to present. And that's after donating about 1000 to the local book-bank for hospitals. Oh how I miss hitting the many used book shops that used to exist.
"She's been investigated for years, and not one problem found"
There's been plenty of 'problems' found. Nothing that has yielded an indictment -- but enough that a reasonable person should keep her clear of public service.
"There are records of every "official" email to and from her in the State Department servers."
Clearly you've no idea what you are talking about.
The State Department received the emails from the Department of Defense "in the last several days," State department spokesman John Kirby said. "
Those emails werent ON the state department servers. Because she sent them from her PERSONAL account to the DoD. How many other emails have yet to surface because they aren't on the State Department's archive?
Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence community, found the two emails containing what he determined was “Top Secret” information in the course of reviewing a sampling of 40 of Mrs. Clinton’s work-related emails for potential security breaches.
You know... if I see enough tell tale clues that a rat has been in my kitchen (chewed hole in dog food, for example) I can decide that there *IS* a rat without actually SEEING it. There MIGHT be a logical explanation for the hole, but as far as Clinton goes, every excuse comes with a lot more tell tale clues. Example:
The company that managed Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail server said it has “no knowledge of the server being wiped,” the strongest indication to date that tens of thousands of e-mails that Clinton has said were deleted could be recovered.
She could be spitting your your face and you'd be saying "it's raining!" Please, I'm not saying "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the legal sense that she did anything illegal. I'm saying that a reasonable person could only conclude that she hasn't been forth-coming and should not be trusted.
(please note all my citations are either liberal or left leaning sources).
Powell and Rice didn't use email much during their tenure as SoS. Rice didn't use personal email at all for State Department business. Powell used a secured laptop with a state department email for the bulk of state department business with minor (his claim) non-state-department issues from his personal account (like house keeping stuff).
Albright didn't use email at all, from my understanding.
That's "why".
That leaves Clinton the last one of the SoS's who could have used email (information age) -- and she didn't use a state department account AT ALL. How can this not ring some alarm inside your head?
You are right. He wont. He is Ross Perot -- sorta.
Trump, like Perot is taking about a narrow set of issues that a very large segment of our population WANT discussed but neither the Ds or the Rs are touching for various reasons. If anything, I'm glad he's in the race at this point to force the discussion.
I'm a fiscal conservative who once voted for Ralph Nader -- not because I would ever want him elected but because there was a SHOT of the Green Party qualifying for federally matching funds that election cycle. And while I wouldn't want the Green Party in charge of a light switch, they have/had some issues that I felt needed to be discussed that were otherwise being ignored by the Ds and the Rs. (Full disclosure -- I live in California which is so lopsided to the "D"s that my vote would make no impact either way but COULD (with a little help of like minded folk) get some other stuff talked about).
The problem is that she put information that must be in the PUBLIC RECORDS (see FOIA) on a private server where she was the sole decider of what is or is not going to the public record. This screams all kinds of alarms for me. No, I cant say she withheld anything damning, illegal, embarrassing, incriminating or who knows what else. What I can say with certainty that all of her actions with regards to the server dont appear to be consistant with someone who isn't hiding something (wipe the HD -- emails trickling out after hearing "they've been turned over" already -- etc). And that fills me with doubt about her and her judgement.
How can we elect someone with this kind of doubt to become president? Only someone with some fake "situational" ethics can forgive this enough to pull the lever for her at the ballot box.
"Or you can just admit that burglary is a really bad example of a gun crime. Burglars are overwhelmingly non-confrontational criminals."
I think you are reading far too much in to what I said. I used burglary where a gun is used is *NOT* a victimless crime. And it is not. And somehow, you read that to mean that I was trying to say burglaries were typically violent.
Or you can just admit that burglary is a perfectly good example for my purposes.
"You can take that to mean that the heightened penalties for armed burglary vs unarmed burglary have successfully dissuaded nearly all burglars from carrying guns."
That really wasn't even close to the argument I was making. Maybe you should re-read it. Because with your response it APPEARS you read that keeping guns away from school will keep killers away from schools -- which is the exact opposite of the argument I made. It will keep law-abiding folk from carrying guns on or near schools. That is all.
"They see women as good for only wombs and want to force them at the threat of prison to have babies. That is the way of their kind. They hate us and want us to die. Want us to die."
Yes that is exactly what Republicans want.
And the Democrats plan to stop them by creating a socialist dictatorship with no freedoms and liberties.
Slashdot Mirror
The BEST adaptation of an Asimov story I have saw was a VHS Video "who-done-it" game based on Caves of Steel. It actually was decent for "B" grade actors and "direct to video" special effects of the 80's.
"Bicentennial Man was descent as far as movie adaptations go"
You have very low expectations. I'm not saying it wasn't a bad "MOVIE". It was entertaining and a kind of "corn-ball" that made me think Buster Keaton. I do not feel I wasted my time or money watching it way-back-when (tm).
However, the movie was not what I would call a good adaptation of Heinlein's story. But, we can have a difference of opinion. It appears we both thought the movie as OK...
"Asimov has a shit loads material. So does Heilein."
Asimov? Because they did so well with 'I Robot' and "Bicentennial Man", right? And The Movie About Night Falling That Shall Be Unnamed? I've no trust in ANYONE producing a good Asimov film *OR* a TV series.
And Heinlein? Do you not remember Starship Troopers? Or Puppet Masters? At least the latter had Donald Sutherland (and he nailed the 'old man') but it otherwise sucked. At least "All you zombies" had a "respectable" attempt last year with Predestination so maybe all is not lost here...
You said nothing that counters what I said. Pushing new medications in to adoption isn't cheap. How is that not PART of getting meds to market? How useful would it be if a new med came out but wasn't really adopted?
The goal of "big pharma" is to make money. They do that by providing effective medications and push the line of new and greater quality treatments. If you remove their ability to make money you will remove them from making new and greater quality treatments. This isn't complicated and making money isn't 'evil' by nature.
"How do you think they get to a $65,000/dose cancer treatment? "Don't worry your insurance will cover it"."
That's disingenuous. Are you sure that $65000/dose price doesn't include not only the cost of research/trials/fda approval of THIS particular drug but also the countless other drugs that didn't live up to expectations?
My mother-in-law takes a fairly new med for her leukemia -- it's about $10,000 for 14 days and has been very effective. That drug would have never made it to market if "big pharma" didn't expect to turn a profit (including cover OTHER research projects). This is *NOT* a bad thing. In about another decade or so the cost will dramatically come down.
I'm not saying that this is the BEST model for research. What I'm saying it is a good and effective model.
They're metric years.
Maybe I'm too much of a cynic but I don't think war is that preventable.
"I've been running my own mail server for a year or two now,"
Unless I'm reading this wrong the article indicates that the problem is NEW email servers. From TFA:
Now, I've no idea if that is true or not. I hosted my own email until around 2010 (since the 1990s) then moved to google apps. The only issue I had is when I changed IPs when I moved and the static I got were previously "unallocated" space and most hosts marked them as spam for just being an IP in that group (never mind SPF records). Took about 1 or 2 months before 'filters' got the clue and fixed the rules.
So if you weren't having any issues maybe it's because you've been up and running for a while. Or maybe the user was getting flagged for some other reason and the only "info" they found as to why before they gave up was from Microsoft.
Most employers like to have "face time" with their employees. And by "face time" I don't mean video conferencing. Yes, there are many firms that will hire out of state -- or out of city. But many of those who are willing to do that just jump the ocean and go over seas where it's orders of magnitude cheaper.
So, while it SHOULDN'T matter where you live for a job like the OP, it, in fact, does matter over all.
I know of many 50+ IT guys who end up working help desks for a fraction of their last wage before they were laid off or let go. I expect sooner or later I'll be let go, too and I'll be in a similar situation. I just need to pay off my home first (which isn't too far off). Then I can afford to live on a fraction of what I currently make. I've lived "house poor" (tossing everything I could in to my home to pay it off early) so when the job-reaper comes knocking I don't lose everything.
"So you own the audiobook but Amazon can't give it to you because of licensing issues? Will all due respect, that doesn't sound like ownership to me. I use Audible every day, and I've never encountered this, but the ramifications longer-term are pretty shitty"
Yes they are (shitty). Don't think I'm happy with it, because I'm not -- but I got 4 book credits out of it (about $100-$150 worth of audio books) and I've since converted each one of my titles to MP3 and burned them to DVDs. I consider it a lesson learned that cost me nothing but some of my time and bandwidth. In fact, the books lost were low-cost and the credits went to books ~$50 a pop.
My kindle is e-ink. His is a fire. My point was that he and my daughter don't have a strong preference either way. Why? Maybe cause they are younger and grew up with it.
But if you want to be an AC-penis, go for it.
I "own" the audiobook. It still appears in my "library" and if the ever re-license it I'll be able to download it again. If I still had the file Audible would authenticate it for me and I could listen to it -- or if I had converted it to some other format I'd still have it. I just can't download it again because THEY can't provide it.
I have quite a collection of audio books. I've had an audible subscription years before amazon borg'd them. And I agree with you completely.
The only thing I've discovered is that a few of the books I "owned" vanished from their available titles and I can't re-download (license expired was the reason I was given). They basically give me a free book credit every time that's happened (4 times out of about 300 books).
Thanks. I'm not skimming or "speed reading" and 4500 is faster than I've tested -- but not by a lot.
A related ability I have is to glance at a page and "find" what I'm looking for (if I 'kind of' know what I'm looking for) almost instantly. It comes in handy for research or reviewing technical material. Example: I went through a 800 page PDF on a particular bar-code reader looking for "something" that might explain an issue we were having where the hardware would fail to read the barcodes. Found it about half way through in about 30 seconds just fast-clicking the "next page" button. CCD on the barcode scanner required greater ambient light than what was available at the location. I really cant explain what I do -- but it's not 'reading'. The stuff on the page just pops in my head (not all of it, though).
Heh... my co-worker referred to me as 'jhonny-five' and joked about my need for 'input' forever after he saw me do that.
"have slow page turns"
See there? That's one of the things I LIKE. Slowing things down. I have a quasi-useless super power: I can read ungodly fast. I can down a 300 page book in 15-20 mins if I let myself. But I don't ENJOY it any where near as much. How can I run through an emotional chapter in 10 seconds? Or something humorous? There's no time for reflection. I just 'digest' the material.
Maybe thats it -- I might just naturally start flying through the text on an e-reader.
I'll agree that e-ink is much better than a regular display for reading on an e-reader. Tablets like the fire or ipad just bug me more. Maybe it's the glassy screen.
However, I still prefer the paper in my hands.
That said, my wife has been trying to move me to a reader for a while. Books take up quite a bit of space.
I've never been fond of e-readers. I like the feel of the book in my hand. I've tried a few (starting with the Sony way-back-when) and moved to a kindle. I ended up still buying paper-books.
Maybe it's my age (upper 40's), maybe it's nostalgia or maybe it's something else entirely but I ENJOY it more when I'm really flipping pages.
My kids on the other hand have no trouble. My son likes paper books more but has no issue reading from his kindle-fire.
Note: I've over 3000 books dating from the 1930s to present. And that's after donating about 1000 to the local book-bank for hospitals. Oh how I miss hitting the many used book shops that used to exist.
"She's been investigated for years, and not one problem found"
There's been plenty of 'problems' found. Nothing that has yielded an indictment -- but enough that a reasonable person should keep her clear of public service.
"There are records of every "official" email to and from her in the State Department servers."
Clearly you've no idea what you are talking about.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...
Those emails werent ON the state department servers. Because she sent them from her PERSONAL account to the DoD. How many other emails have yet to surface because they aren't on the State Department's archive?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09...
You know... if I see enough tell tale clues that a rat has been in my kitchen (chewed hole in dog food, for example) I can decide that there *IS* a rat without actually SEEING it. There MIGHT be a logical explanation for the hole, but as far as Clinton goes, every excuse comes with a lot more tell tale clues. Example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
And then this:
http://www.npr.org/sections/al...
And it was wiped....
She could be spitting your your face and you'd be saying "it's raining!" Please, I'm not saying "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the legal sense that she did anything illegal. I'm saying that a reasonable person could only conclude that she hasn't been forth-coming and should not be trusted.
(please note all my citations are either liberal or left leaning sources).
Perhaps. But I don't think it's the EXACT same kind of situational ethics. Nor does it make it 'right'.
"Why?"
Powell and Rice didn't use email much during their tenure as SoS. Rice didn't use personal email at all for State Department business. Powell used a secured laptop with a state department email for the bulk of state department business with minor (his claim) non-state-department issues from his personal account (like house keeping stuff).
Albright didn't use email at all, from my understanding.
That's "why".
That leaves Clinton the last one of the SoS's who could have used email (information age) -- and she didn't use a state department account AT ALL. How can this not ring some alarm inside your head?
"Trump won't happen"
You are right. He wont. He is Ross Perot -- sorta.
Trump, like Perot is taking about a narrow set of issues that a very large segment of our population WANT discussed but neither the Ds or the Rs are touching for various reasons. If anything, I'm glad he's in the race at this point to force the discussion.
I'm a fiscal conservative who once voted for Ralph Nader -- not because I would ever want him elected but because there was a SHOT of the Green Party qualifying for federally matching funds that election cycle. And while I wouldn't want the Green Party in charge of a light switch, they have/had some issues that I felt needed to be discussed that were otherwise being ignored by the Ds and the Rs. (Full disclosure -- I live in California which is so lopsided to the "D"s that my vote would make no impact either way but COULD (with a little help of like minded folk) get some other stuff talked about).
"What difference does it make?" -- H. Clinton.
Honestly, who cares? It's a non issue.
The problem is that she put information that must be in the PUBLIC RECORDS (see FOIA) on a private server where she was the sole decider of what is or is not going to the public record. This screams all kinds of alarms for me. No, I cant say she withheld anything damning, illegal, embarrassing, incriminating or who knows what else. What I can say with certainty that all of her actions with regards to the server dont appear to be consistant with someone who isn't hiding something (wipe the HD -- emails trickling out after hearing "they've been turned over" already -- etc). And that fills me with doubt about her and her judgement.
How can we elect someone with this kind of doubt to become president? Only someone with some fake "situational" ethics can forgive this enough to pull the lever for her at the ballot box.
You would need to be crazy to agree to be part of a psychology study!
"Or you can just admit that burglary is a really bad example of a gun crime. Burglars are overwhelmingly non-confrontational criminals."
I think you are reading far too much in to what I said. I used burglary where a gun is used is *NOT* a victimless crime. And it is not. And somehow, you read that to mean that I was trying to say burglaries were typically violent.
Or you can just admit that burglary is a perfectly good example for my purposes.
"You can take that to mean that the heightened penalties for armed burglary vs unarmed burglary have successfully dissuaded nearly all burglars from carrying guns."
That really wasn't even close to the argument I was making. Maybe you should re-read it. Because with your response it APPEARS you read that keeping guns away from school will keep killers away from schools -- which is the exact opposite of the argument I made. It will keep law-abiding folk from carrying guns on or near schools. That is all.
"They see women as good for only wombs and want to force them at the threat of prison to have babies. That is the way of their kind. They hate us and want us to die. Want us to die."
Yes that is exactly what Republicans want.
And the Democrats plan to stop them by creating a socialist dictatorship with no freedoms and liberties.
Geez...