I grew up on Tom Baker. I have loved and hated some Doctors as they came and went.

What I've learned: give anyone a chance. They might surprise you, and often do. But if they don't, let it go - it's not the end of the show. Matt Smith I thought would be awful (Too young! No skills!) and I was completely and utterly wrong, and happy to be wrong. Life gives you easy lessons sometimes.

The fun abruptly ended when Maru showed up to try and sit in one of the holes.

"Manowar Knows How to End a Live Show"

Clearly, they don't.... that just went on forever

And is that an 8 string bass?

Ya gotta love a band that watched Spinal Tap and decided "this totally needs to be a real thing".

I try to keep it civil but I've been baited more than anyone else here, voodoo calling me a homo etc or others just plain saying I'm stupid etc.

My argument is the same as jerykk above, exactly my point.

But you people only spout liberal talking points.

"This isn't fair, that isn't fair!" You're like a bunch of 6 yr olds.

I know what a fucking strawman is and I know what a fucking anecdote is, I get tired of being accused. I know what a racist is, all you people have to do is accuse someone and that's the end.

Whenever you show some maturity I will respond in kind. To a progressive, the end justifies the means, so if you can use any tactic to shut me down, you do it, because the end result is that everyone will think just like you...well, I've read 1984 and I don't want any part of it.

Saw him live last year in Montreal. Absolutely hilarious. Seemed like he really enjoyed his work too; he took an extra ~20 minutes at the end of the show just chatting with the audience. Got the feeling back then that he was in some financial difficulties. From this interview too, it seems like a large part of him regrets not sticking with his show for the money.

Suey Park aside (she acts crazy), I personally believe many of you would be well served by thinking about this situation more critically before you jump on the defend Colbert bandwagon. Colbert is a funny satirist, but is not without flaw, and in my mind this bit on his show was at best a shitty joke and at worst completely unnecessarily racially insensitive (i.e. even as satire, it did not serve his point well). An article here talks about it in a more articulate way than I probably can:
http://www.blackgirldangerous.org/2014/04/colbert-white-racial-satire-dont-need/

This is somewhat tangential (I'll tie things together later), but based on my readings it seems Chappelle may have grappled with whether some of his skits were having net positive social impact, especially near the tail end of the show's run. From Chappelle's wikipedia entry (way more context there) --- "Chappelle said that he felt some of his sketches were "socially irresponsible." ... "According to Chappelle, during the filming of the sketch, a white crew member was laughing in a way that made him feel uncomfortable and made him think. Chappelle said, "It was the first time I felt that someone was not laughing with me but laughing at me."
--- For me, coming from somebody like Chappelle, that's pretty heavy stuff. if Dave Chappelle -- IMO quite brilliant both comedically and otherwise, and has personal experience being an oppressed minority -- struggles with what makes good socially responsible satire, that probably means it's hard. Really hard. Yet there are many people far less qualified than Chappelle in the area of satire creation and firsthand experience of racial oppression using "Colbert is satire, don't you know what [good, socially responsible] satire is?" (I'll answer that rhetorical -- No I don't, nor do probably most people) as a bit of a rubber stamp for Colbert being totally justified in doing this bit.
In my opinion, if there were ever a time for Stephen to totally break character for a second and just say "I'm sorry. Satire can be very difficult at times and we make mistakes. This was one of them. We've got to try harder.", now would be the time. As Chappelle pointed out, some people could be comfortable in laughing for the wrong reasons and not realizing it ... those people need a bit of a reality check. As the person everybody is rushing to protect, Colbert would be the best one to deliver it. In doing so, this could even more powerfully (than his satire) make people come around to the idea that racism is not just a switch you can turn off and be done with it (a la Stephen Colbert the *character*), it's a constant maintenance process like brushing one's teeth ( a la Jay Smooth -- Great talk here by Jay on just this topic ). "Wait.... even Stephen Colbert (the person) satirist master extraordinaire needs to think about race issues!? Hmmmmmmm..."

Been watching it, really interested in seeing how the two main characters turn out in the end.

Plus the show has boobies.

Now I'll have to get the blu-ray to see that cold reading.

This is one of the rarest shows I've ever seen where every episode is great and it seems to just be getting better at the very end.

Most other shows are disappointing at the end, like Dexter, for example.

Guess people on VS don't watch WoF? There's no conspiracy here.

He wouldn't have won $1 million instantly even if he had solved the puzzle. The way it works is that IF he has the most cash (the million doesn't count towards his total) when time runs out at the end of the show, then he goes on to the final puzzle. At the final puzzle he spins a wheel with 24 envelopes that each contain different prizes and one of those envelopes will be replaced with the million dollar prize . However, the contents of the envelope are not revealed until after the final puzzle round is over.

In the past five years the million dollar award has only been won twice (according to Wikipedia). Considering that the show airs daily, it tells you how incredibly unlikely it would have been for this guy to win the million even if they'd let him win the round.

Oh, and if you listen to the video more than once you can clearly hear him mispronounce "curio" as "kuro." He was nervous and he made a mistake. Sucks for him but they were right to buzz him.

>> ^L0cky:
I looked at a lot of sources, including CDC. They have a helpful compilation of their stats in the form of their CDC's 2007 chart book. It shows that firearm related deaths and poisoning are always less than motor vehicles; firearms are more likely to cause an early death; while death from poison is more likely to get you in middle age (possbily this includes long term effects of poisoning, ie working with hazardous materials when they were younger?).
It also doesn't show non death injuries; nor can the stats reflect the fact that every household has potential poisons while around half of households have firearms.
I took a look at the pdf, and while the charts are nice, they cover various date ranges and present their results in different formats, and I think you're misinterpreting them. What I did was use the search feature and look at the raw data. You can also search for non death injuries, but gun related non deadly injuries, accidental or intentional, doesn't even make the top 20, and it doesn't show anything below that.

>> ^L0cky:
In absolute terms it's inarguable that there are a lot of gun related deaths and injury in the US (around 31,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries per year give or take). This doesn't change simply because there are other causes of death and injury.
You just said that your source doesn't show non death injuries, yet now you're claiming 30,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries per year. You claim to be getting your sources from the same place, but the data from the CDC shows that between 1999 and 2010 the average homicide by firearm is 12,807 deaths per year. If you add accidental deaths involving firearms the total comes to 21,146 which accounts for 9.6% of all accidental and intentional deaths (this does not include suicide, illness and disease related deaths).

>> ^L0cky:
Let me be clear, my argument is that non sport firearms don't add anything positive to society that justifies the resulting gun related injury, death and crime. The granting of firearm licenses for hunting and sport should require strict licensing that's based on a requirement of training and testing. Gun control laws should be purposefully strict.
We already have plenty of gun control laws. More laws are not going to stop someone that has no intention of obeying them. You obviously did not read the whole article I linked to as it points out that "93 percent of the guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through lawful transactions that are the focus of most gun control legislation.

>> ^L0cky:
I haven't objected to this. My objection is to the suggestion that a societal need to teach children how to use firearms can be used to justify their existence. It's circular logic; and I'd prefer not to live in a society where learning to use firearms is a requirement of safety.
No one said that you need to teach children to use guns to justify their existence. You were a kid once (or still are), and at a certain age didn't you do the opposite of everything your parents said? If there is going to be a gun in a house, even if they are told it's dangerous and not to be played with and you do your best to lock it up and keep it away from them, if they do get their hands on it wouldn't it be better that they knew how to properly handle it so they don't end up adding to the accidental death by firearm statistic? Cars are dangerous too, but we teach our kids how to be safe in and around cars (wear your seat belt, look both ways before crossing street, etc.), why are you so freaked out about teaching a kid gun safety?

Your philosophy that kids shouldn't be taught how to use guns because guns are bad is basically the same as abstinence only sex education, AKA teaching ignorance.

>> ^L0cky:
I'm not stating this, I'm questioning it. You yourself said you own them for self defense.
I said I own guns for many reasons, self defense being one of them. You still seem to be confused about why someone chooses to carry a gun for self defense. It looks to me based on what you've written is that you assume someone carries a gun only to protect themselves from other gun owners. As I already pointed out, only 10% of violent crimes involve the use of a gun. I carry to protect myself from 100% of crimes.

>> ^L0cky:
That has zero effect on the number violent crimes that DO involve the use of a gun.
You can't pick out a small portion of a larger statistic to base your argument on, you need to take into account the whole picture. That's like saying 2001 was a slow year for terrorism, if you don't count the World Trade Center attacks.

>> ^L0cky:
This isn't a useful number unless you can show that those crimes would not have been prevented without guns; and would still have occurred without guns.
I don't know what more you expect, a crime was in progress, a lawfully armed citizen stopped it and it was reported to the police. What your asking isn't possible as the only way to know what would have happened in the other situations is to invent a time machine.

>> ^L0cky:
I guess your point is that gun ownership reduces crime. I'm open to that - if it can be shown more clearly.
What is clear from comparing to other countries, particularly those with comparative gun ownership is that the lack of gun control in the US correlates to an increase in gun related death and injury by an order of magnitude. The problem isn't gun ownership in and of itself; it's gun ownership without lack of appropriate gun control laws.
If guns don't reduce crime, then why do we give them to the police? Once more back to that article you didn't read:

"In 13 states citizens who wish to carry arms may do so, having met certain requirements. Consider Florida, which in 1987 enacted a concealed-carry law guaranteeing a gun permit to any resident who is at least 21, has no record of crime, mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse, and who has completed a firearms safety course. Florida's homicide rate fell following the enactment of this law, as did the rate in Oregon after the enactment of a similar law. Through June 1993, there had been 160,823 permits issued in Florida. Only 530, or 0.33 percent, of the applicants have been denied permits. This indicates that the law is serving the law abiding. Only l6 permits, less than 1/100th of 1 percent, have been rescinded because of the commission, after issuance, of a crime involving a firearm."

>> ^L0cky:
You're right, if guns suddenly vanished tomorrow there would still be crime and violence. However, it would be crime and violence without guns; and I think, that (of itself) is preferable. How could it not be?
Are you fucking serous? Why is a murder with a gun any worse than a knife, baseball bat or even bare hands? A murder is a murder no matter what tool is used to commit it. Other crimes besides murder would be better off without guns, but what part of 90% of violent crimes do not involve the use of a gun did you not understand? If you take away guns from everyone, you're only removing 10% of the tools used by violent criminals, and that doesn't guarantee that violent crime will drop by 10%? In reality you wouldn't be removing anything from criminals because "93 percent of the guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through lawful transactions that are the focus of most gun control legislation. So you essentially want to take away every law abiding citizen's right to defend themselves with a gun without doing anything to stop criminals from committing crimes with guns.

>> ^L0cky:
Crime in the UK has reduced dramatically according to The Office for National Statistics between before then (1999/2001) and now, including firearm offences. In Australia assault is up, robbery is down and sexual assault is about the same according to the Australian Institute of Criminology. Homicides involving firearms have continued to decline to their lowest on record.
From your source: "Provisional figures for the year ending June 2012 show that 5,507 firearm offences were recorded in England and Wales, an 18 per cent decrease on the previous year (6,694)." In 1997 when the ban was enacted only 2,648 crimes were reported involving guns. It looks like that ban has worked well.


>> ^L0cky:
I pulled it from the same source you are correcting me with
The CDC - Injury in the United States: 2007 Chart Book, page 24.
Statisticslol
This is where you have misinterpreted the graphs. The vertical portion of that graph is in deaths per 100,000 population. If you dig up the raw numbers from the search engine this is what you'll find:

Motor Vehicle Accident = 22%
Homicide by Firearm = 13%
Accident by Firearm = 0.5%

>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Sagemind:
Ya, I've watched this show many times - a few times with my kids. At the end of the show, they give updates on the kids. (and they are just kids) - some straighten out and some go down the tubes. it's a 50/50 process.

I bet it's about the same if you picked troubled kids at random and didn't subject them to this BS. There is no evidence that this helps in anyway.

Yeah, if we want to get kids to straighten out, the only way to do it is to give them a path in life.


As long as that means tax cuts for the rich and voucher schools!

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Sagemind:
Ya, I've watched this show many times - a few times with my kids. At the end of the show, they give updates on the kids. (and they are just kids) - some straighten out and some go down the tubes. it's a 50/50 process.

I bet it's about the same if you picked troubled kids at random and didn't subject them to this BS. There is no evidence that this helps in anyway.


Yeah, if we want to get kids to straighten out, the only way to do it is to give them a path in life.

>> ^Sagemind:

Ya, I've watched this show many times - a few times with my kids. At the end of the show, they give updates on the kids. (and they are just kids) - some straighten out and some go down the tubes. it's a 50/50 process.


I bet it's about the same if you picked troubled kids at random and didn't subject them to this BS. There is no evidence that this helps in anyway.

Ya, I've watched this show many times - a few times with my kids. At the end of the show, they give updates on the kids. (and they are just kids) - some straighten out and some go down the tubes. it's a 50/50 process.

>> ^kymbos:

Spoiler alert
Am I the only one who is just a tad let down by this season? Breaking Bad is the best TV since Deadwood in my opinion, but previous series have had me constantly on the edge of my seat. This one, I'm just kind of watching play out. I mean, season 4 - come on. That was gripping.
The last two episodes where Walter just becomes the kingpin and makes piles of money just left me a little empty...


I'm impressed that they like to be different. Working for Fring and the eventual high stakes is actually the kind of plot which they could have ended the entire show with the implication that White takes over, completing his ascent (or descent if you like).

If they didn't take chances they would still be stuck in that RV and we might never have had a Fring.

Season [edit] 5 [/edit] was impressive because it was about getting back into the saddle and the writers engineering the plot developments logically from what went before. I've always loved that about the show and the way they still get to focus on these characters and also extract great acting performances. Jonathan Banks was outstanding. And Dean Norris' awkward face when Walter visited his office was priceless.

As for pure gripping tension I think Dead Freight delivered in spades.

I know what you mean by "empty". I suspect this is how Walter feels after all his accomplishments, most of which seem to be about staying below DEA radar. Could they have moved him to a new location and allow him to develop into a Fring-style respected businessman with a dark secret? But then that would be close to repetition.