Indeed, I've seen the film may times and adore it, but Kubrick didn't come close to touching the moment the book captured. Here was a being, made for a thing, doing everything he could for that thing, and yet, the best thing was for it to cease being, knowing, as you slowly killed it's mind (think coma patients, the doors kept working after the mind died) that it's perception of the best way forward was flawed and that the only chance of success was death. I think that in the story Hal knew he was the obstacle, but couldn't understand the way beyond himself.

If only we all could see this.

No one has mentioned "Rising Sun" either, which I feel is his best book.

Clark wrote an introduction for the 2001 books in a later publication where he explained how the book/movie happened. Apparently Kubrick wanted him to write a movie for him but suggested that he write it as a novel due to screenplays being very dry and nearly impossible to read (this is so true if you ever have to read one). Seems the two began having a life of their own, with Kubrick deciding to change moons at the last minute due to him feeling that his effects team couldn't create a convincing Saturn. In the sequels of the book Clark decided he preferred Kubrick's version and edited history accordingly. Personally I always thought that was a shame, the 2001 book course of events was much better I always thought. Especially the part where Dave failed to rush off in a pod without a space suit to try to rescue a corpse. Him doing that in the movie I always felt was the weakest point in the story.

Look at me: still talking when there's science to do!

The title of the thread/article is *stupid* unix tricks after all.

Not a strawman at all, a strawman argument is one where a person takes a position on an issue and distorts it and then attacks the distortion. The pro-life position is that no abortion should be allowed ever in any situation. You are right that my example it is an extreme case, but it is the type of situation that actually happens. However, in the pro-life view abortion is still not allowed in this case, which is what is extreme.

Seeing the words cyber and attack in the same sentence always causes this to read itself aloud to me in my head.

Let's look at this another way.

Ok, so we've banned the word fuck even in a situation comedy type setting where a character accidentally hits his/her thumb with a hammer. The actor now screams "fugglesticks!" when ever this happens. However, the cop drama show that is on after that sitcom can still have a bad guy type character back a woman into a corner and say something like, "I have a rigid organ in my pants which I am going to force upon you against your will." A nice clean sentence without a single vulgar word.

Which of these would you rather your kid stumble upon? Speaking as a parent I take the one that has a "profanity" over the clean language of the other any day of the week. Context is much more important than content.

Japanese is good at it too, they even take it one step further and adopt/add on other alphabets.

Pro-life is a bad thing, if your niece is pregnant because your brother raped her.

Profit is what you get after you subtract your operating costs from your gross. Payroll is an operating cost. Try again.

True, but only if your profits are greater than $250k annually. If your profits are that high, tighten your belt and buy one less Porsche this year. I know, it'll be rough.

When did you have this problem? 1994? Haven't needed to do that for more than a decade.