That's the most exciting thing that's going to happen in baseball all year.

Spoilers do follow:

What bugged me most was that as a last ditch attempt to save humanity, the NASA successors in the film decided to spend all their time and resources on sending first scouts, then hopefully colonists through an unprecedented wormhole, in the hopes that a suitably survivable planet might be found on the other side. To judge by the film, a lifeless, icy waste without a breathable atmosphere was considered a decent candidate.

So against that background, we come back from the wormhole to a city-sized space station, complete with lawns and baseball.

Why all the trouble? With that level of tech apparently within reasonable reach, why not at least consider colonizing a planet in our own solar system? Why risk everything on a complete unknown?

If this was Africa, the guy in the baseball cap would have gotten a hand job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkkXepnZ0w8

Ah. I had no idea.

I don't watch baseball.

No love for the Bruins? I'm appalled.

I somewhat support the Pats because my dad liked them because Brady is the QB and he went to Michigan and the Lions sucked for so long (yes weird logic). I don't care much for the Sox (or baseball in general) except for when they beat the Yankees.

A baseball bat to the head is certainly much worse than a catcall or a "have a nice day."

I pretty much expect to hear that this was a hoax. If not, that's crappy, but not the worst by far. My bro got a baseball bat to the head for being male in a 'gay area' in Houston, and he's not gay.
I'll reserve my vote for a few days to see if this is all fake.

You're backwards. What he's saying is that reading the bible gives you a 'moral barometer', and if you don't read and believe it you don't have one. He's saying religious people have this device that measures the change in their morals, a change he also thinks is impossible because their morals are designed to be perfect by Gawd.
He's saying atheists don't have a device that tells them what's moral, but he doesn't realize what the device he referenced does (because he's a religious nutjob that loves to speak about things he knows nothing about, it's what they do).

For @Tolwyn, more trees means more baseball bats, furniture, fuel for outside wood burning stoves, but the less assholes part was about you. D'oh! I guess that was too difficult for you to understand?
Just plain ol brain dead stupidity, Steve.

More trees means more baseball bats, furtniture, fuel for my outside wood-burning stove. Yup. I like that.

When I was a kid, I played on a baseball team with a kid that only had 1 hand. He would have to bat with 1 arm, and when catching the ball, he would have to quickly pull his glove off with his chin, grab the ball out of the glove, and throw.

He struggled with the game, but never gave up. Made it real easy for us to pull for him. Inspired the rest of the team, especially when he cranked a few hits into the outfield.

I'm utterly unconvinced by your assertion that the public did not think his rape conviction devalued his endorsement. Why do you think that? Because you did? As soon as i understood the story (there's no description) my immediate reaction was, "well if an ear biting rapist ex-boxer endorses you...."

I'm not saying that the broadcaster definitely had heard people saying that, but i think it's naive to think that his rape conviction went unnoticed by everyone who heard about his endorsement - i noticed. I take the way people act very seriously and mike tyson has shown himself to be a dangerous and troubled individual so my ONLY reaction to the endorsement news is "why should i care what that person thinks, given his record?"

Furthermore what responsibility are you referring to that requires him to name the persons who suggested the question to him? I thought media people have the right to protect their sources? This isn't an investigation and we're not his jury, so why would he need to name his source?

I think you're dead wrong on this one, for example if he had said "Some people are saying this is mike tyson's big come back! What do you have to say to them?" I don't think you'd be demanding that he name his individual sources.

Now if mike tyson were on tv to give his opinion on who was going to win the next football/baseball season then i'd say his past wasn't relevant. But if he's going to offer his endorsement to what seems to be a political interest, then his character and therefore his past is the only relevant issue. Mike tyson had a good opportunity here to talk about how his life has turned around, and what he believes in now. He's a very eloquent man when he wants to be, and he could have knocked that question out of the park, made a viral hit, made the endorsement 10x stronger. But you know what he did instead? He acted like a thug and spat abuse at the guy, swearing and being childish and making his endorsement 10x weaker.

Am i going crazy here? Surely publicly presenting your approval to something requires us to place a value on your approval, and allows your character to be questioned? And i can only see good reason to protect the anonymity of the person who wanted the question asked (even if it was the interviewer!) judging by tyson's childish, aggressive reaction! I mean i liked mike on charlie sheen's roast too, but this isn't a comedy show and that question was fair. Mike could have knocked this one out of the park if he had thought about it.

I am often befuddled by the logic of what's allowed and what's not, and the seemingly arbitrary choice of same by different TSA employees... The cane that Ms. Robotcow is holding in the opening sequence looks like it might be able to inflict some serious damage by anyone skilled in the art of baseball. On a flight to Canada three weeks ago, we were not allowed to carry on a short (fits in the measuring device) 4 piece fishing rod with spinning reel attached, in a soft sided, zippered travel bag. Seemed they thought it could be weaponized. Thankfully, our driver was close enough to retrieve the offending package and take it back home. Oddly, on the return to USA, my fingernail clippers were confiscated as they had a fold out file - these were just good old Walgreen's, have carried them for 7 years and approx. 100 flights. I could do more damage with a key, a pen, a plastic knife or a wooden pencil. I also carry a beautiful blue machined aluminum pen/kubaton from Smith & Wesson, which is pointy, but hey, it's just a pen. I do give the TSA high marks for consistency in the application of inconsistent policies. Well done everybody.

I've known at least two cases of people who made threats over the internet, who were absolute psychos and probably wouldn't have bothered with threats at all had they been able to be there in person. They'd have simply shown up with their blowtorch and baseball bat.
The fact that threats are made over the internet means diddly-squat. Threats were made, that's the only part that matters.

I saw this on the news last night, but like here, they never showed the propulsion method. It looked way too much like a baseball pitching machine for me to be comfortable with this yet.

EDIT: I think you meant to say 'how can you NOT disagree that an organization that commits actual massacres...actual fucking massacres is better than Faux News?', meaning 'How can you agree Isis is better than Faux?'...right? You forgot to double the negative.

I think that can be reasonably asked because Faux news (and others) has essentially become the propaganda wing of another organization that commits MORE actual massacres (but usually from a distance...I'm talking about the US military industrial complex here). That makes them directly complicit in and a facilitator and even instigator of the killing of hundreds of thousands of 'innocent' (non-threatening) people, to me that's likely worse than directly killing hundreds, even if you only ascribe 5% culpability/responsibility to them, perhaps it's not to you.
It's a bit like if you're in a disagreement with your neighbor and your cousin comes over with a baseball bat, knives, and a stun gun, gives them to you and then constantly, angrily, threateningly, cajoles you into violent action against your neighbor. The cousin will be (properly) prosecuted right there with you when you murder your neighbor and his family...so should Faux news be.