PokerPacker

And while we're at it, let's place cameras on every street corner with facial recognition software to track the movements of every individual in every corner of the country.

I will not pretend to be an expert on the subject of Lee, and would be open to another interpretation of him. However I would note that just preceding the quote you've supplied, he writes "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages." He also seems to be relying heavily on God in much of his philosophy as he delves further into that after the portion you quoted. Not sure how much of that might be an attempt at justification, pandering to a particular audience, or just being misguided.

$3.75 mil isn't nearly enough. Can't help you with the microsoft office stuff, but that machine should more than suffice for your needs, I'd think.

I think we need to be able to separate the person from the side the fought on. Robert E. Lee, specifically, I do not think of as someone fighting for slavery and division, but fighting for his family and friends. They were in the south and it would be rather difficult to fight against your own family. It seems many people are drawing parallels to NAZI Germany and Hitler. I'll accept the NAZI analogy, but not Hitler. You cannot separate Hitler or Goebbels and the like from what NAZI Germany as they were the creators of that terror. A better parallel, in my opinion, would be The Desert Fox; General Erwin Rommel.

You're all welcome.

Started watching The Expanse. Wow, when did someone teach SyFy how to make a TV show? Great production values (do they allocate some of their budget to getting on the vomit comet for some of those zero-G scenes?), intriguing story, and a solid cast of actors that aren't household names (except maybe Frank Castle Thomas Jane). Not sure if serious.

From what I've seen, it seems most all mummy movies have the same plot: Mummy wakes up, attacks those who desecrated his tomb, and stalks the reincarnation of his lady-friend. The Mummy played by Boris Karloff is named Imhotep, same as the 1999 movie. Anyways, I just looked up the Tom Cruise one on IMDB. All I had to see was that it was directed by Alex Kurtzman. That should be reason enough to skip it.

It can be surprising, sometimes, to find out a movie was a remake. An example of one that few people seem to be aware of is that the Scarface we all know and love is actually a remake.

Just for clarity, when you say the original, do you mean the one from 1999 with Brenden Fraser? Because before that was The Mummy in 1959 starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. And prior to that was The Mummy in 1932 with Boris Karloff.

I'm currently paying for 15 Mbps. Last speed test I ran clocked me at 19.

The problem for me is it's just unnecessary character connection that we see all the time these days. Like in the Turtles reboot they have April O'Neal feeding Pizza to the turtles before their mutations because reasons. I'm not even a fan of how Vulcans keep being forced in in general. They saw that everyone liked Spock, so now Vulcans need to be everywhere. Spock being in Starfleet was kind of a big deal. He was the first Vulcan to turn down the science academy in favor of Starfleet, a decision that resulted in a rift between him and Sarek causing them not to speak for 18 years until the events of Journey To Babel. Putting Tuvok and T'Pol in Voyager and Enterprise respectively was just fan-service giving them their favorite alien race. And on the topic of Spock and Sarek being estranged over the decision to join Starfleet, giving him an older sister who joined Starfleet before him really changes the dynamic of that. Now Spock is essentially following in her footsteps rather than being a pioneer. And I suspect the new series is gonna have plenty of Sarek around to interact with who's-her-face.

I count myself as cautiously optimistic for that one. Nicholas Meyer gave us Wrath of Kahn and The Undiscovered Country. Easily my two favorite Star Trek movies, not to mention the obvious Kahn connection. Furthermore, because it is a spin-off rather than proper Star Trek, I do not feel it is really bound to Gene Roddenberry's principles (not that being bound to them is a bad thing, so much as ignoring the principles on something that should be bound by Gene's vision). It also does not have all that much in the way of canon that it is bound by, so there are fewer opportunities for something to screw it up. If I find out Alex Kurtzman is involved in any way, my cautious optimism will probably give way to just caution. Also it should go without saying, but casting of Kahn will be key. Need someone in really good shape, a big stage presence, and preferably looks either similar to Montalban or I'd be willing to accept someone of Indian descent as that was the original intent for the character as he was original described in Space Seed (before revived) as most likely resembling an Indian Sikh.

I guess that explains the rumor I'd just read about Nicholas Meyer working on another Star Trek series. Of course that series isn't quite what Renegade was asking for, as he was talking about the Eugenics Wars rather than Survivor: Ceti Alpha V.

Players absolutely should have guaranteed contracts. If a player decides he doesn't want to play on a particular team anymore, his recourse is to... ask the team to trade him. If a team decides it doesn't want a player anymore, they can just up and cut the player. What's the point of a contract between two entities if only one side is actually bound by it?

Well WW3 still happened sometime after that. It was out of that where Cochrane designed the Warp Drive that brought first contact with alien life (Vulcans) and then eventually from there Starfleet was formed. I think Star Trek 3 would have been much better if they retained Kirsty Alley as Savaak. What's-her-face bore no resemblance to Savaak and it was really jarring for me when I was younger. I never realized they were supposed to be the same Character.

You want a Star Trek show set in the 1990s? Edit: Thinking about it now... that may have been a missed opportunity for Star Trek IV when they travel back into the 1980s. They could have set that time period up as paving the way for the rise of Kahn in the next decade.

Worth it.

If we ever meet, I'll be claiming my rite of vengeance.

I don't think it needs to be left... It just needs to be put into the hands of someone who can do it justice. Alex Kurtzman is not the man for the job.

Easily in Shamalan's top 3.

(not quoting the whole thing) We cannot let our society be held back just because there is a small subset of people benefitting from its inefficiency. What we do need is a retraining program to help people who's jobs have been lost to improved efficiency.

New trailer continues to look like crap. Up is down and when you're lost you're found? Oh, real deep! I bet insanity is sane and illogic is logical, too. And of course they can't help but retread old grounds by bringing back a character Star Trek fans of old are familiar with in Harry Mudd. Of course like everything else, he seems to be a darker, edgier Mudd.

I believe we were promised depressed robots.

Wait, seriously? They went with a ****ing Desert Eagle to pull this off?! No wonder Darwin stepped in.