NOTE: [spoiler]The movies are a sequel to the books. We can not expect things to be the same every single loop[/spoiler], and you are trying to fit a 7 long books into what... 3 movies and 2 TV series? Plus covering a bit of the graphic novels and expected changes...

EDIT: Appears the spoiler tag doesn't actually work, though it is listed in the FAQ... unless one can see one's own spoilers...

Well, the comic it comes from (The Dark Knight Strikes Back) is widely regarded as a bit of a mess (the art is pretty terrible and the story is all over the place). Shame, since it's a sequel to one of the most important graphic novels ever (The Dark Knight Returns).

And then there's the Goddamn Batman.

Basically, Miller is insane.

Your video, Bill O'Reilly's '98 Novel Is Rich With Foreshadowing, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

*comics Adapted from a graphic novel "The Coldest City"

I happen to have a close friend who teaches neuroanatomy at medical school.

She says she'd fail any student who understood as little about the human brain.

First, memory is not perfect. That is a myth. No amount of prodding will get a patient to remember the entire text of a novel verbatim unless they'd already spent a huge amount of time purposely memorizing the text. The human brain is all about shortcuts and workarounds so we remember important content without having to store massive amounts of data. There is no such thing as photographic memory.

Secondly, you can't just stick a probe in someone's head to extract information. You could trigger memories randomly, but you'd never know what memory you'd get from one time to the next.

He shows a fundamental lack of understanding on how the brain works.

Just looking at his Wikipedia article because I was curious. It says he nearly flunked out of medical school but suddenly turned things around when he stopped attending lectures (he claimed to be self studying). Sounds a lot like a pattern of cheating on tests if you ask me. Certainly he has no idea what he's talking about now, so he either forgot everything he learned for the tests or he never really learned it.

My opinion may be unpopular too, but I see a room full of people who aren't going anywhere, and if they really wanted to improve their condition then a little elbow grease can clean that place right up for about $15. Hell, throw in a few cans of paint/supplies for another $100.

Oh, and how about this novel idea: don't like what jail looks/smells/feels like? How about making sure you do whatever it takes to NOT go back. Its a jail, not a boarding house for indigent children who cannot fend for themselves.

Yeah, I just don't have much of a bleeding heart for the repeat criminal. Maybe we can save this type of jail for the multiple-time repeat customers and keep the jails that are barely above livable for the first timers.

Does anyone know if this is based on something else? Novel, comic, etc.?

It's always funny when something with a long comic history comes into the mainstream and everyone debates it like it's something new that only exists because of other shows that exist in recent pop culture.

The real question is: Why are the Defenders -- who are basically Dr. Strange's "Avengers" -- comprised of the 2000s Marvel Knights minus Moonknight?

Why not Moonknight instead of Iron Fist?

It's not as simple as "punch-em-up" versus the graphic novel, artsy Alias side of Marvel. The Netflix version of The Defenders is weird and I'm just hoping they tie in Cumberbatch (Dr. Strange) and the "Matrixesque" side of Marvel with what is the "Lovecraftian" side of Marvel. The Defenders are more this dark horror magick side who fought against the Nameless One and his legions.

Alternative Facts is a term coined by George Orwell in the novel 1984. It Implies that the government makes stuff up and makes it a crime to argue with them.

1984 is now the best-selling book on Amazon. Hmm.

The story isn't about dinosaurs, though. It's about chaos theory, humanity's arrogance in the face of nature, and the overreliance on technology. The novel goes significantly deeper on these topics but it's still there subtextually in the film.

Here is the problem, Mr. Schlosser is a journalist, not a Nuclear Scientist. He does not understand, or has chosen to ignore for propaganda reasons, that an unarmed warhead is EXTREMELY unlikely to perform the exact sequence of events that need to take place to have a nuclear reaction happen.

Yes, he is fully correct in that we have had numerous 'butt-clenching' moments in which we could have started WW3 due to a malfunction or human error. But in the other cases he mentions, such as the bombs that landed on Spain, the lightning bolt on the tower, and the wrench on the rocket, the chance of the warhead going up while being unarmed is infinitesimal. They simply don't go 'boom' because of a collision or explosion. Now you could have a 'dirty bomb' type incident where the radioactive materials could be spread and come into contact with humans, but that is about it.

The cases that have been officially listed as Broken Arrows were because they involved an active bomb, like the one in Florida. Everything else he mentions in this video is his 'belief' and is conjecture.

Now, before I get unloaded on, I wish we didn't have nuclear weapons. I don't agree with Trump that we should renew the arms race, I think he is nuts since we have more than enough weapons to blanket the cities of the world more than a couple of times. If you add all the nukes from the Big 3 (USA/Russia/France...yes, France) there are enough to cover every single inch of the world.

The problem is, who bells the cat? If we give up all of our weapons, we are at risk. I wish we weren't, but we would be. If we bring down our numbers gradually, there are still other countries that may not, like North Korea. How do we trust the other country is actually following through? In a perfect world, we would all lay down our weapons and sing kumbaya, but as Heinlein wrote: "...Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."

PS...Yes, I know Starship Troopers is a controversial novel with overtones of Militarism and Fascism. However, there are quotes that ring true no matter what 'ism' people attach to the overall story. If you doubt that, look at the utter disbelief and depression that overcame liberals when Trump won. "He simply was supposed to, it was impossible, not like this, we have no hope, etc" were the feelings of the people who gave him no hope of winning. I, having lived and read enough to get a fair picture of how fucked up we are as a species, had little doubt he could pull it off. We elected a former Wrestler as governor, a former actor as governor, and a former actor as President. We overlook mass genocide in other countries. We ignore climate change. We spend hundreds of billions on defense and less than 10 on space exploration, all the while living on a planet that is already critically overpopulated (and is growing almost exponentially).

I'm sure the graphic novel is great, but this trailer just looks quite generic, which tends to happen when they make movie adaptations

It's way far from anything that is Star Wars. I have all the Graphic Novels at home and it's an amazing series.

It probably looks like everything sci-fi because so many other sci-fi films have drawn inspiration from the visuals from this late-60's graphic novel. Including starwars(heavily).

Ohhhh, so you just reassert your point about Democrats never backing down, but Republicans do without any factual basis whatsoever! What a novel losing debate strategy!

Obamacare isn't perfect and needs to be fixed or replaced with something better. Not the Trumpian "something great" if it should be replaced, but something that is well thought out and addresses what Obamacare couldn't accomplish if the entire premise is systemically not going to work.

Did you see what I did there? I *gasp* recognize that sometimes things don't work! OMG! IT'S AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also didn't say it's a "fucking disaster", because it isn't. If it were that, explain how the uninsured rate has dropped very significantly. It was never going to achieve 100% insurance rate. The only way that happens is with single payer.

Here's how stupid you are. You don't seem to understand that if Obamacare isn't the answer, you're just making single payer universal health care more likely to be enacted. The American people are not going to go back to being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. They're just not gonna. Obamacare is the least left policy you could possibly enact that would help control costs and decrease the number of people who are uninsured.

You can scream to the top of your lungs, but Obamacare was enacted to remedy real problems. I'm even sympathetic to the argument that those were real problems, but Obamacare isn't the answer, but if you're going to make that argument, you have to propose something that has historical precedent and rationale to solve those problems. And you simply don't have one.

So again, keep struggling in the quicksand until it swallows you whole, and single payer is enacted.

Your evidence about health insurance premiums is anecdotal, and quite frankly, you don't seem to understand that your numbers and description of what happened to her is absolutely ridiculous. You don't get on medicaid because your insurance premiums go up under Obamacare. You qualify for Medicaid because of a lack of income.

Secondly, the claim is absolutely ridiculous that her premiums went up that much. For data we have available, *unsubsidized* premiums for the lowest cost silver plans for data we have in the Obamacare exchanges was $257 a month for a single person.

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/analysis-of-2017-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marke
tplaces/

If she qualifies for Medicaid, then surely she could go on a silver plan in the Obamacare exchanges and come out likely paying less. Oh, and, on top of that, she would EASILY qualify for federal subsidies if she qualified for medicaid.

Oh, and btw, without Obamacare, if health care companies decided to raise those premiums just to price gouge, what protection would she have? Not much. Obamacare insures that you can only take in so much that isn't spent on health care.

Your story is completely utterly full of crap on so many levels, it's clear you made it up.

I'm dismissing all your numbers are being unsubstantiated bullshit. Have premiums gone up? Sure have. Were they going up before Obamacare? Yep! There's a healthy debate about how much Obamacare is contributing to premium increases. Obamacare isn't perfect. I'm happy to discuss rationally what could be done to improve Obamacare, or another plausible alternative. But not with you, since you pull numbers out of your ass that easily are completely debunked.

BTW, FYI, Obamacare was not intended to lower premiums nor to completely eliminate the number of uninsured. It was to control costs in all forms and reduce the amount of uninsured, as well as reform the health care system to eliminate problems like being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, people having to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills, etc.

Some of its goals it succeeded in, and some not so much. That's a fair assessment at this point. Medical related bankruptcies have not declined. Being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition has been eliminated. Premiums have gone up, but we simply don't have enough data to determine if they've slowed or accelerated since Obamacare was implemented. If you go by the immediate years after Obamacare was fully implemented, they slowed.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/Adler_Exhibit1.png

More recently, they've accelerated. It's important to note that health care costs are not solely determined by premiums alone. It's interesting you cherry picked premiums only to prove costs haven't been controlled because premiums are your best case to make that point. Copays, coinsurance, deductibles, prescription drugs, all those play a role. IE, if the average American pays more in premiums but less everywhere else, it's possible the net average is lower for total costs paid for health care.

These are complex topics that have no room for bringing in rose colored ideologically tinted lenses to force the outcome to be "a fucking disaster", where you'll bring in anecdotal evidence, some of which is completely utterly made up.

Just how far are you willing to make stuff up? Hillary Clinton, according to you, has never in the last 40 years done anything substantially positive.

REALLY?! Look, I understand not necessarily wanting her to be President. OK, fine. But that claim is absolutely ridiculous. Over $2 billion has been raised by the Clinton Foundation, and over 90% of that has gone to charitable work according to independent studies. Before you go down the path of "paid access", blah blah blah, even if that were true, the reality is $1.8 billion went to charitable works around the world through the Clinton Foundation Hillary Clinton helped to create and run.

That's not substantial?!?!

Dude, just stop. The only people who believe that BS are people within your bubble. You're not convincing anyone else who didn't already think Hillary Clinton personally killed Vince Foster. You're just making people like me think you're a complete loon.