The Drug Companies Have Nothing to Worry About

In the following article in USA Today about Mylan, the exploitative company behind the notorious EpiPen, the authors make the point that Mylan is not the only guilty party, but that many drug manufacturers use their market position to extract monopolistic fees from their victims.  See the article here.

In particular, they have a fabulous quote by a market analyst about why investors have nothing to worry about from government legislation.

Some think the fears about government attention on high drug profit margins are overblown. "We believe that this effort (efforts against Mylan's price hikes) likely will follow the same playbook that lawmakers used to shame Gilead, Valeant (VRX), and others," according to Spencer Perlman, analyst at Height Securities. "Congressional hearings and a press onslaught, but no substantive legislative action."

In other words, our politicians, corrupt to the very core, pay lip service to the problem but take no action. As always. As long as they get their money from the corporations, they don't really care about anything else.

The problem with this “business as usual”, is that we are expected to be patient with the process, to trust these people, our representatives, to have our interests at heart, and very clearly they do not. Being patient, and trusting them is in fact part of their game. Therefore it is a reasonable response to demand substantive legislation immediately, or take direct action through the proposition system, and then, of course, to expel these corrupt miscreants, our elected representatives, from office.

Of course, anyone who knows the history here knows there is very little chance of anything good happening. The pharmaceuticals industry is spending over $100 million in the state of California to defeat a proposition designed to allow Medicare to get the same prices as the VA department.

That would be horrible, wouldnt it, to help poor people get their medication?  Why, that violates everything that America and our political system stands for.  You can be sure that our politicians will not allow this to happen.

Yet Again, the Problem is the Documentation

There are several unwritten rules about the Internet and we might as well make them clear up front. The first is that everything is great, and if you dont say and acknowledge that its great then you are an asshole and must be ignored and written off as someone who complains.  And I do complain so they are correct.  The second rule is that the documentation sortof sucks, and it does.  It is not intentional on anyone's part that the documentation sucks, or rather is uneven.  It is just the way things turned out.

Now for some details and a specific example and one more time it is not the technology per se that is bad, although of course there are always things one might like to change.  The problem, as always it seems, is that the documentation is either wrong, inadequate or overwhelmed by noise that masquerades as signal.  And that noise manifests itself as "helpful" documentation available on the Internet and authored  by the "group mind" that is, unfortunately, wrong or out of date or replicates what is already there or all of the above and there is no easy way to tell the difference.  As a result, the anarchic state of the documentation makes learning new and possibly better approaches on the Internet annoying and much more time consuming than it needs to be.

Websockets is the “new” approach to client server communication for browser applications. It does not look like much, but it is apparently almost as good as what we had with the Arpanet on day one in 1972.   As I read more about Websockets, I realize that there is a lot of thought that has gone into it in fact just because the Internet is not the ARPAnet and there are a variety of considerations that this forces on the design of technology like Websockets.  

Now Websockets is marked as experimental and is also considered to be incompatible between various implementations/browsers. However, it seems that is old news and that there are good implementations in most browsers and a variety of frameworks to hide differences between browsers.   For my application, I am not too concerned about this as my specific application is more of a proof of concept and we can finesse such things as working transparently on all browsers, for example.

But as always, the documentation is ad hoc.  There are many different frameworks one might use for your server side implementation.  Each of them has a different approach to documentation. Just choosing between the different frameworks (in this case that works with node.js) is itself a chore and a half.

For example, the websockets.org site has the source to an echo client that runs in a browser and is written in Javascript, and they also run a live echo server on their site.   But the source for their echo server is not available.  Why not?  And there is no contact information on their website such that you could ask them that question or any questions at all.

I presume that the people involved in all these technologies and frameworks are not lazy nor stupid.  I suspect that there is a combination of things going on here.  They include such things as (a) being not particularly talented at writing documentation nor enjoying the process, (b) not realizing that such documentation is necessary, (c) balancing the needs of this project with other responsibilities, (d) relying on someone else to do it, and (e) actually believing the groupsource myth that says that other people will write it for you.

My guess, my personal guess, without enough information, is that Websockets is an effort by an elite who simply do not understand or care that people learning their protocol who have not lived with it as they have on their committees will need more documentation and usable examples to make good use of their time.  It works for them.

If you dont like it, well its the Internet, and you dont have a choice.

[Addendum.  As time goes by, I penetrate more of the mysteries and it is not too bad. In fact, it may even be reasonable.  But Jesus, they really don't try to make it easy for you.]

The Failure of Moral Progress: The Tragedy of Javascript

From hope to despair, then to hope, then to despair again, is that the fate of all civilizations? To give in to sloth and decay, their monuments to reason covered with the slime of intellectual and moral weakness? To sink again and again into corruption, incompetence, venality and death ? Is hope for progress mere pablum for the weak minded to keep them enthusiastically at their tasks until it is too late and their fate is sealed?

Something has been revealed to me recently that would make me think so.

A computer language is many things but one of them is a (usually formal) specification of a grammar and a syntax that is useful to the bipeds in expressing their ways of doing things, what are sometimes called algorithms, named for the jazz trio of Johnny von Neumann, Alan Turing and Alonzo Church whose band, The Algorithms, dominated avant garde jazz in the 1930s up into the 1950s and whose influence is still heard today. Although writing computer algorithms is a very personal and idiosyncratic form of expression, the notation that the individual artists (and groups of artists) use to express themselves will subtly affect the elegance of the algorithm and can by its nature guide and channel what can be expressed. They may all be Turing equivalent at some theoretical level but they "feel" very different.

There is no one such formal language, there are many, and there will be many in the future. Like music and music notation, they will evolve and some will be appreciated by an elite, and some will be used by the masses. Some, like SNOBOL are esteemed but not in current usage. Others like C++ (pronounced "C Double Cross") are as common as flies on shit and just as attractive.

As in all things there is the matter of taste and the issues of elite style vs common style. The avant garde must by its very definition be avant, changing and moving forward.

Even so, we can look on in horror or at least puzzlement when something that is fundamentally flawed, something that we know is just not going to be good, becomes established and then through the vicissitudes of the uncaring fates explodes onto a hundred million computer screens to become encrusted into just as many computer programs and taught to our children and then to their children in perpetuity.

I have just looked more closely at HTML 5 which is already everywhere and soon will be truly everywhere. One day there will be an HTML 6 no doubt but until then it is HTML 5 that will be used to mark up what our civilization has to say about itself. HTML 5 is a synonym for Javascript, as Javascript is integrated into the very essence of HTML 5. There can not be one without the other. Where you find HTML 5 you will find Javascript.

The more I learn Javascript the more I realize that Satan and the Illuminati, another band from the 1930s, must be chortling with glee at the little joke they have played on our world. For Javascript is a pastiche which pulls a little from column A and column B and column C and Java and Scheme and C and blows smoke in our face. It is a tale told by a billionaire, Mark Andresson, who was in a hurry at the time and would we have done any better if we were in his shoes?     I would hope that we would, but it is very hard to know until we are tested, and we probably never will have that opportunity.   It is what it is, however.

Javascript is not the best we, the computer community, can do in a perfect world.  But it is not a perfect world, and at least Javascript is not the worst that there is out there.    At this point, it is just a fact of life.

___________________________________

HTML 5 Working Group
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/

HTML 5 on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5

Tippett Studios Disturbance in the Force

[being rewritten, awkward construction]

There has been another event in the long saga of visual effects employment in this country. (1)

This time it involves Phil Tippett and his Tippett Studios which has laid off about 40% of their staff, roughly 50 people. In an article in the Hollywood Reporter, Jules Roman, CEO and President, predicted that the work was going up north to Canada and that they had to get a project by the end of the year or, the implication was, that was the end of Tippett Studios.

See the article here:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tippett-studios-vfx-house-lays-431762#

For those who do not know Phil, he is a brilliant stop motion animator whose studio made the transition from traditional arts to 3D / Computer Animation.

Once upon a time, a long time ago, when the first Star Wars came out, the film distinguished itself by showing rare enthusiasm in all its shots. A door would open with a bang. A spaceship was clearly an Empire Ship of the Line such as EE Doc Smith would conceive of it. A bad guy looked bad. A throwaway shot that most people remember is when Chewbacca is playing chess with R2D2 and a little chess piece destroys his opponent which was a stop-motion shot by Tippett.

Phil went up to Marin County to help set up the new ILM for Empire Strikes Back and then went off to run his own production company. Starship Troopers was their first big entry into computer animation and they did a spectacular job, imho.

Here is an interview with Phil from about the time he went up to ILM.

http://starwarsinterviews1.blogspot.com/2010/05/phil-tippett-interview-stop-motion.html

At deGraf/Wahrman we worked with Phil on Robocop II which was an odd film but a pleasure to work on. The screenplay was much better than the film itself for some reason.

Anyway, the producer, Jon Davison, had us collaborate with Phil's company on our 3D talking head of the bad guy, a scanned version of actor Tom Noonan. The computer animation was going to be played back a frame at a time on a laserdisk (thats how long ago this was), on a stop motion character that they were animating.   This would be a modern version of the idea of projecting an image inside a miniature, as one might find with King Kong (1933).

It can difficult sometimes for facilities to work with each other because of the traditional competitiveness of the industry and because so many people in this industry are immature. But not in this case. Everyone was great to work with.

For years now, Tippett Studios was one of the few other VFX companies in N. California besides ILM.

It is the nature of companies like this that they must grow and shrink to meet the production work that they have in-house. And they have survived now, even prospered, for many years, perhaps 20. Their excellence at character animation has always been a strong way for them to distinguish themselves and to get the work that was appropriate for their talents.

The point I am trying to make is this. Although it is normal for production companies to grow and shrink with the work, and even normal for production companies to go out of business after a time (they all do, eventually), losing Tippett would be a major loss of a company known for its excellent character animation, and a place of employment for animators.

Not all computer animation companies and vfx companies are the same. They have different styles, different bodies of work, different cultures. Tippett is a stop-motion animation culture in a computer graphics world. I would hate to lose them, and the vfx community would suffer a loss if they went away much bigger than the mere numbers of employed would indicate.

So lets ask the question. What exactly are the politicians in this state and the US Congress thinking while Canadian and UK subsidies and globalization wipe out the vfx community in this country?

My guess is that they don't care how many unemployed there are or whether the industry goes away as long as the Hollywood studios can save a buck.

Phil Tippett on IMDB
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0864138/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

King Kong (1933) on IMDB
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024216/

_____________________________________

1. Visual Effects now means computer animation or computer graphics, but it did not used to mean that, of course.

Politics Is a Continuation of War by Other Means

The following is an editorial about recent politics in Washington involving the Petraeus resignation.   In this editorial, I express my real opinion about the Republicans and if that is upsetting to you, you may wish to stop reading.   

When I started this blog, I made the conscious decision that one thing I was going to do here was to express myself honestly about some of the politics and hypocrisy I have observed in my so-called life.   This is the second such editorial in a series, the first is here.

One more time we have a situation where the Republicans demonstrate amazing hypocrisy and a willingness to damage America in any way they can as part of their pursuit of power.   In an attempt to damage a member of the the Obama Administration they have slandered and probably succeeded in destroying the career of a loyal and competent soldier.  

The situation as I understand it is this.   The FBI failed to notify Congress that they were investigating a senior administration official.  Presumably the investigation itself was initiated by right wing Republicans looking to generate dirt to manipulate the Presidential election.  The investigation failed to find any wrongdoing and the investigation was dropped.  Some right wing FBI agents decided to disclose confidential personal information collected during the investigation to their allies in the Republican party in congress, who used this information to attack and slander a person who was innocent of all wrongdoing.

Having an affair is not a crime in this country.   If it were, there would be a lot of criminals walking around.  And Republicans of all people should be the last people to point fingers.

This post has been rewritten to be a little less negative.  Are we so powerless that we can not even control our own FBI ?   Are we so stupid that Republicans can not see how evil their elected representatives are?

Maybe its just that the Republicans are desperate men.   I dont know, I am not going to worry about it here on this Blog, I have better things to do with my time.

Republicans and Oral Sex

Sometime near the end of the Clinton administration, I was sitting in my apartment in New York reading about current politics and the world in the New York Times.  One more time, Congress was deadlocked and could not debate or make progress on any topic, other than one. The only topic the Republicans would permit the discussion of was oral sex, presumably the oral sex between Monica Lewinsky and President Clinton, a subject which was, in my opinion, none of their fucking business.

It was oral sex this and oral sex that.  It was blow job this and blow job that.  Oral sex.  Blow job. That is what Republicans wanted to discuss.  That and nothing else.

I want to propose to you why this was a logical thing for them to do.  There is a legal aphorism that goes like this: "When you have the facts, you pound the facts. When the law is on your side, you pound the law. And when you have neither, you pound the table".

My judgment was that the Republicans had no ideas on any of the important topics and issues that faced this country.  So, having utterly failed to be useful to the nation, all they could do was pound the so-called "character issue" of Bill Clinton.  In reality, the people without character were the Republican Congressman who put the country last and their politics first.  But they felt they had to do that, perhaps, because they had no good ideas on any other topic.

They had no ideas about the economy.  They had no ideas about how to help the poor.  They had no ideas about how to bring peace to the world.   They had no ideas about how to educate people about global climate change or what to do about global climate change if we could even agree it existed.  They had no ideas about how to improve regulation of Wall Street and the banks and prevent the financial meltdown their greed and stupidity was about to cause.  They had no idea on hundreds of other issues, big and small, facing our nation at that time.   

No ideas at all on any topic.

Nothing.

Nothing at all.

All they wanted to do was to discuss oral sex, endlessly.

So, if I ever feel the need to discuss oral sex with a congressman, I know to call a Republican congressman. I would encourage you to do so as well.

But if you are concerned about any other issue facing America today, the Republicans are the last people you should call as they have nothing positive to contribute.  

Update to Editorial on Firesign Theatre, the President's Ride and Unemployment

I rewrote the post about the "president ride", unemployment, and the responsibility of our elected officials.  It goes into more detail and is more explicit about what is expected from elected officials and how they should be evaluated.

http://globalwahrman.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-firesign-theatre-presidents-ride.html