It actually makes quite a bit of sense when you take a moment to think about it. Its the "Gym Membership Effect" in action.
At any given time there's 8 to 10 movies playing at the multiplex, and if there's more than 10 screens the films tend to be older and have a lower audience. Of those 10 films perhaps one or two will interest you, but some months nothing is going to interest you and so you won't go; MoviePass gets to keep your money that month. Or perhaps several months go by with you not seeing a movie, lack of interest, lack of time, it doesn't matter - they still have your money.
Its like those Gym Memberships everyone gets after the New Year, some people will be gym rats and go every single day - just like you'll get the odd cinephile who will see a movie every day. But most people will go once or twice a month, or less, but keep paying the payment for years because of traction and its cheap cost ("Its only ten bucks, and I did go to the movies last week."). They'll lose on the cinephiles, but they'll gain on all the casuals who go to the movies 3-4 times a year, the trick is going to be getting enough of the casual audience to sign up.
That said they might want to consider a "family" plan, my sister has three kids and taking 5 people is like taking out a small bank loan - but I'm betting she'd pony up $25 a month to surprise the kids with a movie night once in a while.
We dont see articles on how to get more men into nursing, teaching or rhythmic Gymnastics.
Slashdot is a tech site, so its not surprising we don't see many articles about diversity in these fields here. But if you look around and broaden your horizons, you'll find that there is a push to have a more equal workplace in those areas as well.
My neighbour when I younger was a male nurse, yes - a male nurse. He talked often about all the effort which was being taken to get more men into the profession, but in the end - just like the female programmers who often leave their programming jobs - he left the profession of nursing, a job he absolutely loved doing, because the culture at large wouldn't accept him as a nurse. Patients used to think he was a doctor, then get upset when they found out he was a nurse - and then would outright refuse his care, instead asking for a "real nurse". He constantly got mistook for an orderly or the cleaning staff, and patient's families would often report him to security for "messing" with a patient's medications / IVs.
After years of this, he eventually got tired of constantly having to defend himself at work that he quit. Since he was a fully trained nurse he was able to get an administration job in the medical field, but he was never really happy with it. He often wished he could have stayed working as a nurse, but the constant harassment on the job from people who just couldn't accept a male nurse wasn't worth it.
Now I'm not so sure about teachers or gymnasts, but I'm betting if you go digging around the internet you'll find sites which a focus on those fields lamenting the lack of diversity within them.
Slashdot is a science and technology site, so it makes sense for us to talk about the lack of diversity within technology and science here. But if you think other professions aren't having this discussion in regard to the diversity within their specific fields, well you could't be more wrong.
People choose what interests them and social biases play a part in what interests them but unless someone is actually getting harmed by the choice why should Society spend resources balancing the trend?
Unfortunately the larger "social bias" doesn't currently accept a man as a nurse. These ingrained "social biases", which say that men can't be nurses, have brought great harm to our larger society by preventing him from doing something he loved; caring for the sick. Our "biases" have caused harm by preventing a nurse from providing care to those in need and spending resources to fix these biases wherever they lie is a laudable goal.
I feel very frustrated. If anyone has any ideas on how to get girls interested in tech, I would love to hear about it.
I'm can't help you, but I'm just as frustrated.
My 12 years old niece loves, loves, Kerbal Space Program and plays it constantly. I introduced it to her when it first came out in 2015, when she was 10, and she's been having fun launching rockets, failing, redesigning, and trying again - she loves it. But she is absolutely terrified of her friends finding out, so much so that she'll play dumb about the game whenever her friends are around and a family member happens to mention it. I can't stress enough how scared she is for her friends to find out she likes a game about rocket science.
When I ask her why she says, pretty plainly, "Girls aren't supposed to be smart, no one likes smart girls - please don't tell anyone I like this game, I don't want people thinking I'm smart because then I won't have any friends!" She's 12! She's deliberately going out of her way to hinder herself and limit her choices in life because society has browbeat into her that she's not supposed to be smart or take an interest in science. The Ontario Science Centre is one of her favourite places to go, she begs me to take her whenever I can - and she totally gets the science, especially the Astronomy section, and could even be a scientist someday if she really wanted to - but she never tells her friends that she loves going there lest they think she's "smart" and shun her.
I've been trying to convince her otherwise, but it just doesn't work - peer pressure when you're a child is a horrific thing, it really messes you up - she's been telling me that girls aren't supposed to be smart for years now - and I think as adults many of us forget just how important social acceptance is to kids - how important it was to us when we were kids - and how that shapes one's perceptions far into the future.
While on the surface that sounds like a lot of money, its important to remember that current model Teslas are premium products and are priced accordingly. More modest EVs, with their smaller packs, will be much more economical.
For example Chevy has said they've gotten the pack price for their upcoming Chevy Bolt down to around $145/kWh, since they're planning on a 60kWh pack that works out to about $8,700 for the pack - after "profits" they'll probably sell replacements for 10k. That sounds like quite a bit, but when you consider that the pack should provide a usable lifetime range between 6-8 years its not that bad.
* At 6 years that's about $1,666 annually, or $32/week. * At 8 years that's about $1,250 annually, or $24/week.
Granted your experience will differ, for me its about $1 daily to fill up my 2015 Nissan Leaf since I don't drain the battery to empty. I'd expect a similar experience even if the pack size were larger than the current 24kWh pack I have. I've owned the Leaf two years now and I've spent perhaps, at most, $600 to fuel my car - or about $300 annually or $5.75 weekly. So using the examples above that takes the "fuel" costs up to:
* 6 years = $1,666 + $300 = $1,966 or $37.80/week * 8 years = $1,250 + $300 = $1,550 or $29.80/week
When I drove gas I spent upward of $40/week, about $2,080 annually, in fuel. When I consider the maintenance I'm no longer doing - oil changes, spark plugs, various belts, transmission, etc... - along with the cheaper insurance, my rates actually went down and I'm now paying about $75 monthly on a brand new car!, it works out to be cheaper overall. All in, without digging out my old receipts and doing the math, I was easily at least $50-$60 weekly ($15k-$25k total over 6/8 years) keeping my gas car running.
However unlike a gas car which has these charges spread over the 6 to 8 years, making it easy to not notice them, when the time comes to replace the pack in an EV you pay it all out at once and this makes it looks like an expensive vehicle to maintain. Granted it is a lot of money to spend at one time on a car, but Total Cost of Ownership between EVs and Gas over time have no contest - EVs are far cheaper over the long term to maintain and run than a gas car. The biggest expense on EVs are tires, brakes, suspension, air conditioning, and the battery pack. Brakes seldom need to be replaced due to regenerative braking, tires are tires - everyone replaces those, and suspension and AC are just parts of the standard vehicle maintenance. But all the rest that comes with owning an ICE engine you just don't have that and you couldn't pay me to go back, I've got better things to spend my money on.
And this, of course, assumes that you're going to replace the pack after 6-8 years. If the degraded pack still meets your needs, you can continue to drive on it until it doesn't. Additionally the battery tech is getting better all the time, so as the technology improves replacements will get cheaper and existing packs in newer vehicles will maintain their usable life for longer periods - the TCO will just get lower.
And thanks to those same companies lobbying efforts they're still able to enforce copyright on something, which by all rights, should have entered the Public Domain 21 years ago.
So much for the continued progress of the arts and science, Axanar looked like an interesting project - it was the first "real" Trek I'd seen in years and I was looking forward to the feature.
Been wondering if we couldn't use corporate law against them in this case, by pushing for ever longer terms they're missing out on profits - corporations are mandated to maximize profits. Paramount, by lobbying to extend the term lengths, is missing out on that sweet sweet Star Wars money (which should also be in the public domain) and thereby depriving their shareholders of a potential revenue steam.
I'm not a lawyer but I'd have to wonder if these guys could get some Paramount shares and counter sue?
For about the price of a month's worth of cable you could have all the shows you're interested in and save the other 11 months for something else. I did this years ago, picked up an AppleTV - works great for streaming Netflix and my purchased DVD / Blu-Rays I've been ripping into my iTunes Library - and now just get season's passes for the shows I watch. For local events I put a DB8e on my roof, though if you live in an apartment you could mount it to a weighted pole on your balcony or window.
All in, between my Netflix subscription, Crunchyroll (I really love Anime), DramaFever (I really love Korean dramas), and my iTunes seasons passes I spent around $300 annually on my entertainment - when you consider I used to spend almost $1,500 on cable its amazing how much money I saved. I also have more free time, less of it spent channel surfing looking for stuff to watch, and I never have to watch commercials unless I'm watching OTA, which is why I picked up a DVR+.
Unless you're big on sports, and the AppleTV has been getting all the big ones lately (Hockey, Football, whatever - I don't watch sports), or your shows aren't available digitally there really isn't much reason to get cable / satellite anymore. I've been cable free for nearly 4 years now and I can honestly say that I don't miss it.
Note: While I'm Canadian, I'm assuming you're an American and have used the iTunes prices from the US store
Bell is actively trying to gain traction for their own brew of Netflix (CraveTV) is mere coincidence.
Except that they're really not, they only offer it to people who already have a Bell - or one of their partners - subscription to a Satellite package. You literally cannot sign up for Crave unless you have one, they won't let you, and I'm not paying the metric fucktonne of money Bell requires to get a Satellite package - not to mention they'd likely want me to sign up for their internet too. Did I also mention you can't even sign up for the service unless you have third party tracking cookies enabled by default on your browser? Fuck that noise.
Shomi, the Rogers equivalent, is pretty much the same except you need - you guessed it - a Rogers, or other partner, cable service in order to get it. And again, they'll likely want you to get their internet on top of it.
So for about $100+ per month I could spend $4 to get a streaming service that has a few extra shows than the Canadian Netflix does or I can save my hundred bucks and spend $8 on Netflix. I cancelled my Bell internet a few years ago, went with Teksavvy - totally worth it, and signed up for Netflix while sticking an antenna on my roof for OTA HD. I honestly don't miss cable, Netflix / Youtube covers nearly all my visual entertainment needs, and for what it doesn't cover I get either OTA or use an iiTunes Seasons Pass for the rest.
On a side note, the list of lost actors from the B5 production should include Tim Choate who played my favorite character, Zathras.
One of the problems with trying use the original actors in the film is that a significantly large number of them, including Tim Choate, are dead. Though I do agree with you, Zathras was one of my favourites too.
I'm shocked really at how many are gone - since I have fond memories of the show its really hard to think that 20 years is all that long ago but I was watching a video of the Babylon 5 20th Anniversary Reunion at the Phoenix ComicCon filmed in 2013 a few months ago and they had a Video Memorial showing all the fallen stars of B5 and was surprised at how many were gone.
It makes sense that they want to restart with a new cast and I trust JMS to do it right - I doubt we'll see "Old Sheridan" meeting up with "New Sheridan" like "Old Spock" / "New Spock", unless Boxleitner happens to be playing Sheridan's father in the episode.
My point was you can't properly judge attraction from still photos. You lose sound, smell, motion, etc. I've found very attractable women that take horrible photographs, and vice versa. Meeting someone for the first time in meat space gives a better indication of whether or not there is physical attraction between two people. Online they're just as liable to click 'next' without even bothering to find out if it's there.
I certainly don't disagree with this. There is definitely something to be said about meeting someone in "meat space" versus the online world - there are a lot of missed cues that just can't be picked up via a glowing metal box with some text on it, then again in the online dating realm that's what you have to work with. When that's all there is its to be expected people would be putting their best foot forward, ensuring any photos they post of themselves are as representative as possible to increase their chances of getting responses.
If one can't be bothered to put out a decent representative photo would you really want to meet that person in real life? I've actually seen women state in their online profiles that they were Non-Smokers / Non-Drinkers who then posted profile pictures of themselves smoking a cigarette while holding a beer!
Personally I don't like online dating for the reasons you point out - I have met a number of women I've found physically attractive, even if we didn't really have much in common otherwise, that I'd have never responded to an ad for because they just don't look good on film.
If your goal is a 40 years relationship, but still think attraction is a valid characteristic, you need to grow up.
We were talking about whether or not using physical attraction to a person as one of the metrics of selection on a dating website was harsh for people to do. Its interesting how you missed my stating that while physical attraction is certainly a valid choice, its also not the only thing that matters: "Selecting for attraction is just as valid as selecting for ideals and interests."
In the past, I dated two very beautiful girls (one was a model). Both times I was deeply in love, but it didn't last. After a few months, I just didn't care about them and even found them quite annoying. Physical attraction doesn't last.
Which, ironically, was kind of my point. You need a combination of physical, emotional, and intellectual compatibility along with a decent amount common ideals and interests to have a long lasting relationship. No one thing is more important than the other, they're all equally important.
Then again I'm not sure you'll really understand this - someone who equates the short term lust of a beautiful woman with the deep emotional, intellectual, and physical attraction of someone whom they share a great deal of common ideals and interests with love needs to grow up far more than I do.
she ruled out the people that she didn't see a physical connection with, which sounds harsh
What's harsh about it? It actually makes sense.
Selecting for attraction is just as valid as selecting for ideals and interests. If you're going to potentially spend the next 40 plus years with someone its usually best to pick someone you're attracted to physically - even if it feels harsh the person being rejected, better to be with someone who desires you in every way and doesn't shudder at the thought of having to see you naked.
Depends on what you consider "reasonable", how willing you are to think outside the box, and how willing you are to be patient. After listening to my family complain constantly about the $220.00 per month, $2,640.00 annually, we were spending on Cable and Internet we took at look at what was available and what we were willing to give up.
With our Cable cancellation, which was a $120.00 per month and at a different provider from our Internet, we now had $1,440.00 freed up to spend on our video entertainment.
Our iPads have apps for all the major TV Networks, I'm Canadian by the way - just for context, and an Apple TV. The Network apps have nearly every show the day after they air, basically as long as you're willing to wait a day you more or less get them for free. Sometimes they'll have ads which are usually less than 30 seconds, by the time you're reaching for the remote to mute the sound the show is often back on. For the ones that won't play on the Apple TV because of "restrictions" from the rights holder we just all shuffle down to the big screen in the basement where I've got the iMac hooked up, we open a browser window on the big screen and watch it from the Network website.
This a-la carte method of TV, where we only watch the shows we want, costs us all of $0.00 total.
We also like movies and and a bit of variety. For a decent selection of older movies and TV, much of which we haven't seen so its all new to us, we got Netflix for 8.99 per month. I love Anime, so I picked up Crunchyroll for 11.99 per month. We also picked up the Crackle, Viki, Vimeo, and Youtube Apps to round things out and give us some more variety - all free by the way.
At this point the entertainment services we do buy work out to just 251.76 annually, an amazing savings of approximately 1,188.24 annually. That money saved can be used for other things. For example the shows we can't get through the "free" channels, or that we just want to see in higher quality, we simply buy them. Some, when they're not too expensive at iTunes, we'll get a Season Pass for - even though they're available through the Network websites I still get Arrow, S.H.I.E.L.D., and Doctor Who via Season Passes because I like the higher quality. I think its reasonable to pay $35.00 - $40.00 for 22 45 minute episodes (1.60 to 1.80 each) as experience has shown the Blu-Ray will likely cost $60.00. I just think of it like a rental or magazine subscription that works out to the equivalent of a doughnut and a drink at the Timmies once a month.
For some shows the online options are simply too expensive and unreasonable to buy, I personally refuse to pay more than physical price for an HD season of TV on Blu-Ray, so we just wait and buy them when it comes out on Blu-Ray / DVD - or, if we're being patient, will wait until it hits Netflix.
Since much of what we used to watch we could still get via the Network websites and Apps, we spent just over, I think, $300.00 on TV & Movie DVDs / Blu-Rays last year - though I'd have to pull out the receipts and add them up. About the only thing we were missing out on was the first run movies and sports, if you're big on either you might have to make a bit of a sacrifice there. It wasn't a problem for us since we don't much like sports and we've found that first run movies we want to see bad enough to rent are often ones we want to buy anyway.
Even the prices you stated in your post aren't really all that unreasonable when you think it through, $2.99 / $3.99 for a for 45 minute show is about the same price as people spend for a "Specialty" Coffee at the Starbucks, a magazine / newspaper they'll read once and then throw away, a beer at the pub, etc... I personally wouldn't buy it at that price either, its getting too close to physical purchase cost and I'd much rather wait and have the physical item in hand. Still, if it was a show I desperately wanted to see it could certainly be justified - especially since I could afford it since I'd just freed up that $1,440.00 I was wasting on Cable.
Put up new-khan next to old-khan and it all doesn't seem that bad really.
Except it does, it really does.
"Old Khan" is still, without a doubt, arguably the best film in the entire Trek franchise. Even after all this time it still holds up as an engaging story with just the right amount of character development and action. I've seen it more than 40 times, its one of my absolute "go to" favourites, and I still cry when Spock dies at the end - every single time, without fail. Say what you will about Shatner's acting in general, that one scene is so emotionally touching and moving - the grief and hopelessness he exudes at the death of his best friend, its hard not to be moved by it.
The "New Khan", I laughed my ass off at New Spock's "NooooooooOOOOooooo" Vader moment - as did most of the theatre I watched it with on opening night. It was utterly pathetic, devoid of any emotion at all. It was the big death scene and it played like a cheap joke, a pale comparison to a 30+ year old movie which did it far far better than J.J. was able of coming up with.
Not saying I didn't enjoy the new film, it was a decent action flick, but it was a pale imitation of the original. I definitely won't be watching it 40+ times, when I want to watch a good "Wrath of Khan" story I already have the far superior original to choose from.
My old iPod I treat with utmost care because the little booger has a spinning disc in it.
I used to speed walk with my old 5th Gen iPod with the 30GB spinning disk in it, tucked it into shirt pocket where it bounced around quite a bit. After all this time it still works just fine, though the age of the battery means I barely get 6 hours out of it and something happened to the audio jack recently so I can't hear anything out of it anymore; I've been debating on getting it fixed because it just works so well.
Even though I had bought a 3rd Gen 64GB iPod Touch, I kept using my old 5th Gen iPod to hold the extra bits of my music collection that wouldn't fit on the Touch. Now that the audio jack is borked I'm hoping the new Touch, which usually comes out in the fall, will finally enter the modern age of storage and have 128GB on it so I can finally upgrade and put all my music in once spot.
Granted my 5th Gen is beat up and covered in scratches, it's well used and it still works - audio issues aside - so I'm betting even if you had one of the First Gen units you'd could get away with being a bit rough and tough with it.
The parts are useful to keep a hodge podge of frankencomputers working around the house.
I hear you there, people keep giving me their old crap - the 486 DX4-100 came from a friend who was working on an upgrade from a 386. He was about to install the motherboard when he knocked it to the floor put a nasty crack in it, since he'd bought the chip and board used and hadn't sunk in a whole lot of cash he just used it as an excuse to upgrade to a Pentium. Since the chip was fairly well protected by socket and fan, and my motherboard could run it with a BIOS update, I figured I'd try it (I wanted an excuse to upgrade to one them new Pentiums too) and ended up with a modest speed boost that lasted me another 4 years until I bought the K6-2.
Since I bought the Mac Mini in 2005, and the iMac in 2009, I haven't used the K62 or 486 all that much but I do know that they still work - I play the odd game in Windows 98 or DOS game that doesn't work all that well on XP or I can't be bothered to mess around with the DOSBox settings for.
In all the years I've been building computers I can name only twice where I ever had the opportunity to upgrade; once with an old 466 when I went from a DX2-50 to a DX4-100; another time when I upgraded a K6-2 333 to a K6-2 500. Most of the time when it came time to "upgrade" there had been so many changes to the bus types, socket types, memory types, etc... it was just easier to start over from scratch than try to pick an upgrade from a narrow list of parts which often cost a fortune, while often only giving a moderate speed boost, because they were now considered "specialty" equipment for an obsolete architecture.
Granted, there are people who will insist that they've been able to upgrade their systems multiple times - but I'm not talking about those compulsive types who need the newest graphics card every other week. Most people I've talked to will buy a machine and keep it for 2-4 years before thinking its time buy a new one, by then everything has changed and the existing machine is mostly obsolete and so they have to start new.
An hour in the supermarket once a week, and half an hour every night to cook is somehow "incredibly difficult and time consuming"?
You must not be eating healthy. And, like most people, you're forgetting to add the prep and cleaning time. Lets try this again, shall we?
Fresh meats and veggies have short shelf lives, even when stored in the fridge, as there isn't much in the way of preservatives since you're eating fresh. Because you're going fresh you can only keep a few days stored at a time. You're going to spend about an hour, every other day, walking around the grocery store and waiting in the damn checkout lines to buy what you need for dinner.
When you get home you're going to spend about 30 minutes, minimum, to prep all that stuff - those books, magazines, and TV shows which tell you that you can do a full meal in 30 minutes are lying, that's often the cooking time after you've spent at least 40 minutes prepping; its not a coincidence that most TV cooking shows have the ingredients prepared in those nice little glass bowls, or the food often cooked in advance - you'd spend most of the hour long show watching the chef cutting and prepping before any of the actual cooking took place.
After prepping, depending on the meal being cooked, you're looking at another minimum of 30 minutes to cook it all.
After cooking, unless you're a pig, it'll probably take you at least 15-30 minutes to eat it.
After eating you've now got a 30-60 minute adventure in the kitchen cleaning up the mess you just made.
If you like variety in any way shape or form you're likely going to want to eat something different for lunch than yesterday's leftovers - double all the time above if you're also making lunch.
Did I mention how expensive it is to eat healthy? It wasn't at all uncommon to spend upward of ten to fifteen bucks a meal!
When you add it all up, cooking fresh takes a minimum of 2 hours, every day, prepping, cooking, and cleaning up after yourself. 4 hours if you decide to make a lunch that isn't yesterday's leftovers. Throw an extra hour in for grocery shopping every other day and you're up to three to five hours, daily. And before you go all "bullshit" on me, or try to insinuate that I'm making this up, I USED TO DO THIS! I've wasted hours of my life cooking, prepping, cleaning.
We only get 24 hours in a day. I sleep for 8 of them, work for 8 of them, spend two of them travelling back and forth work, and I used to spend 4 hours - EVERY DAY - eating, cooking, cleaning, prepping, going grocery shopping. I used to have a grand total of 2 whole hours of free time, every day. It was stupid, and a complete waste of my time. I sat down one day and figured it out and by increasing my food budget by about 20% - 30%, I could go out to eat for both lunch and dinner every day for about 30 to 40 minutes each and it wasn't all that hard finding healthy choices either. Now I pay the restaurant / cafeteria at work to cook, prep, and clean and I get back that 4 hours - I'd call that a fair trade.
For most of the content in EVE, you simply need to be there, on site, to experience it to its fullest.
In the context of the game what you say makes sense, but we're talking TV or comics here. A medium where we're going to be introduced to a band of characters, their ship, the people they run with, and a familiarity with their histories all as part of a long story arc leading up the Battle of Asakai. By the time we get to the battle we'll have had so much invested in the characters we've come to know and love, the outcome of the battle will be just as important to us as it was to you when you played it.
I didn't need to live in the 24th century to feel connected to the the battle for DS9, my investment in the story of the people who lived there made me feel connected. If the cast and crew of EvE Online: The Series do their jobs right I won't need to live there to feel connected to the Battle of Asakai either.
Better be good with that trigger finger if you get that six star wanted level, no way you're outrunning those fracking Snow Speeders and their damned grappling lines - they're taking you down every time.
Gun fire, explosions, and the totally implausible "I can't believe no one died and the car is still going" car flips all while the dialogue from the last hour is retold through a deeply moving song and dance number. Its a plucky love story about the rookie cop, who thinks she's plain and boring despite being portrayed by one of the hottest actresses in India, falling in love with the nerdy nice guy who's down on his looks, despite being played by one of the hottest actors in India, who just can't get his car to stop.
The only thing standing between them and their love, outside of the racing car, are the bumbling bank robbers who think the procession of speeding vehicles quickly gaining on them are actually trying to arrest them. For laughs they'll have the cars speed through a bus terminal and across the decks of cruise ships while continuously cutting to reaction shots of a guy who looks a lot like Dennis Hopper.
Now it's the case there are no limits on how many times he can regenerate
I remember when I was a little kid watching the episode where they talked about Doctor only being allowed twelve Regenerations (I think it was twelve, I was a kid at the time) and crying over it. I never wanted the Doctor to die and I thought it was mean of the Timelords to tell the Doctor he could only have so many Regenerations before he died. My old man, who was a huge Doctor Who fan himself, pulled me up into his lap and told me this story about how "Regeneration Juice" was very expensive and very hard to make. That in order to ensure they had enough for all the Timelords and their children, and to keep them from fighting over it and use it all up quickly, they they all had to agree to share.
I doubt its Cannon, just a silly little story told to a crying child. But if its got any basis in truth then with there being only one Timelord, and no other Timelords to share with, the "juice" available to the Doctor during Regeneration would be pretty much unlimited.
Or, more realistically, when the RegenValue was originally chosen the BBC didn't have any clue that the show would remain as popular as it has and continue to be produced even now. They probably figured 12, or whatever number was chosen, was safe because they were probably quite convinced the show would have been cancelled before it ever reached that number.
If we're going to have the Doctor start meeting up with the Disney Kids then my vote is for Selena Gomez, her portrayal of Alex on Wizards of Waverly Place often stole the show. You've piqued my curiosity, I'd certainly be interested in seeing the guy who finds all the trouble paired with the girl who makes all the trouble just to see what kind of trouble they'd get into together.
One LRM-20 salvo to the rear-right torso armor should be enough to detonate its ammo and it's all over.
That's only if you luck out and get a high enough roll on the missile hit table to get all 20 missiles to hit and get all four rolls to hit the same spot. My personal favourite tactic is to take an Archer, park him in a corner, use a few scout mechs for scouting ahead in cover as spotters, and then pop off long range shots hoping to get enough 5 point clusters that one of them hits the head.
Head hits always cause stun damage to the pilot and gives a chance they'll pass out, at the very least it'll increase the to hit modifiers on that mech for the rest of the game - at least they did when I played years and years ago.
I don't play much anymore, the game simply takes way too long to play - I'd go to friends houses early Friday night and play until late Sunday and still not finish an actual game. The only time we'd really finish a game in a reasonable amount of time was lance on lance, but even then it can take the better part of a day and a half to finish a game.
Slashdot Mirror
It actually makes quite a bit of sense when you take a moment to think about it. Its the "Gym Membership Effect" in action.
At any given time there's 8 to 10 movies playing at the multiplex, and if there's more than 10 screens the films tend to be older and have a lower audience. Of those 10 films perhaps one or two will interest you, but some months nothing is going to interest you and so you won't go; MoviePass gets to keep your money that month. Or perhaps several months go by with you not seeing a movie, lack of interest, lack of time, it doesn't matter - they still have your money.
Its like those Gym Memberships everyone gets after the New Year, some people will be gym rats and go every single day - just like you'll get the odd cinephile who will see a movie every day. But most people will go once or twice a month, or less, but keep paying the payment for years because of traction and its cheap cost ("Its only ten bucks, and I did go to the movies last week."). They'll lose on the cinephiles, but they'll gain on all the casuals who go to the movies 3-4 times a year, the trick is going to be getting enough of the casual audience to sign up.
That said they might want to consider a "family" plan, my sister has three kids and taking 5 people is like taking out a small bank loan - but I'm betting she'd pony up $25 a month to surprise the kids with a movie night once in a while.
Slashdot is a tech site, so its not surprising we don't see many articles about diversity in these fields here. But if you look around and broaden your horizons, you'll find that there is a push to have a more equal workplace in those areas as well.
My neighbour when I younger was a male nurse, yes - a male nurse. He talked often about all the effort which was being taken to get more men into the profession, but in the end - just like the female programmers who often leave their programming jobs - he left the profession of nursing, a job he absolutely loved doing, because the culture at large wouldn't accept him as a nurse. Patients used to think he was a doctor, then get upset when they found out he was a nurse - and then would outright refuse his care, instead asking for a "real nurse". He constantly got mistook for an orderly or the cleaning staff, and patient's families would often report him to security for "messing" with a patient's medications / IVs.
After years of this, he eventually got tired of constantly having to defend himself at work that he quit. Since he was a fully trained nurse he was able to get an administration job in the medical field, but he was never really happy with it. He often wished he could have stayed working as a nurse, but the constant harassment on the job from people who just couldn't accept a male nurse wasn't worth it.
Now I'm not so sure about teachers or gymnasts, but I'm betting if you go digging around the internet you'll find sites which a focus on those fields lamenting the lack of diversity within them.
Slashdot is a science and technology site, so it makes sense for us to talk about the lack of diversity within technology and science here. But if you think other professions aren't having this discussion in regard to the diversity within their specific fields, well you could't be more wrong.
Unfortunately the larger "social bias" doesn't currently accept a man as a nurse. These ingrained "social biases", which say that men can't be nurses, have brought great harm to our larger society by preventing him from doing something he loved; caring for the sick. Our "biases" have caused harm by preventing a nurse from providing care to those in need and spending resources to fix these biases wherever they lie is a laudable goal.
I'm can't help you, but I'm just as frustrated.
My 12 years old niece loves, loves, Kerbal Space Program and plays it constantly. I introduced it to her when it first came out in 2015, when she was 10, and she's been having fun launching rockets, failing, redesigning, and trying again - she loves it. But she is absolutely terrified of her friends finding out, so much so that she'll play dumb about the game whenever her friends are around and a family member happens to mention it. I can't stress enough how scared she is for her friends to find out she likes a game about rocket science.
When I ask her why she says, pretty plainly, "Girls aren't supposed to be smart, no one likes smart girls - please don't tell anyone I like this game, I don't want people thinking I'm smart because then I won't have any friends!" She's 12! She's deliberately going out of her way to hinder herself and limit her choices in life because society has browbeat into her that she's not supposed to be smart or take an interest in science. The Ontario Science Centre is one of her favourite places to go, she begs me to take her whenever I can - and she totally gets the science, especially the Astronomy section, and could even be a scientist someday if she really wanted to - but she never tells her friends that she loves going there lest they think she's "smart" and shun her.
I've been trying to convince her otherwise, but it just doesn't work - peer pressure when you're a child is a horrific thing, it really messes you up - she's been telling me that girls aren't supposed to be smart for years now - and I think as adults many of us forget just how important social acceptance is to kids - how important it was to us when we were kids - and how that shapes one's perceptions far into the future.
While on the surface that sounds like a lot of money, its important to remember that current model Teslas are premium products and are priced accordingly. More modest EVs, with their smaller packs, will be much more economical.
For example Chevy has said they've gotten the pack price for their upcoming Chevy Bolt down to around $145/kWh, since they're planning on a 60kWh pack that works out to about $8,700 for the pack - after "profits" they'll probably sell replacements for 10k. That sounds like quite a bit, but when you consider that the pack should provide a usable lifetime range between 6-8 years its not that bad.
* At 6 years that's about $1,666 annually, or $32/week.
* At 8 years that's about $1,250 annually, or $24/week.
Granted your experience will differ, for me its about $1 daily to fill up my 2015 Nissan Leaf since I don't drain the battery to empty. I'd expect a similar experience even if the pack size were larger than the current 24kWh pack I have. I've owned the Leaf two years now and I've spent perhaps, at most, $600 to fuel my car - or about $300 annually or $5.75 weekly. So using the examples above that takes the "fuel" costs up to:
* 6 years = $1,666 + $300 = $1,966 or $37.80/week
* 8 years = $1,250 + $300 = $1,550 or $29.80/week
When I drove gas I spent upward of $40/week, about $2,080 annually, in fuel. When I consider the maintenance I'm no longer doing - oil changes, spark plugs, various belts, transmission, etc... - along with the cheaper insurance, my rates actually went down and I'm now paying about $75 monthly on a brand new car!, it works out to be cheaper overall. All in, without digging out my old receipts and doing the math, I was easily at least $50-$60 weekly ($15k-$25k total over 6/8 years) keeping my gas car running.
However unlike a gas car which has these charges spread over the 6 to 8 years, making it easy to not notice them, when the time comes to replace the pack in an EV you pay it all out at once and this makes it looks like an expensive vehicle to maintain. Granted it is a lot of money to spend at one time on a car, but Total Cost of Ownership between EVs and Gas over time have no contest - EVs are far cheaper over the long term to maintain and run than a gas car. The biggest expense on EVs are tires, brakes, suspension, air conditioning, and the battery pack. Brakes seldom need to be replaced due to regenerative braking, tires are tires - everyone replaces those, and suspension and AC are just parts of the standard vehicle maintenance. But all the rest that comes with owning an ICE engine you just don't have that and you couldn't pay me to go back, I've got better things to spend my money on.
And this, of course, assumes that you're going to replace the pack after 6-8 years. If the degraded pack still meets your needs, you can continue to drive on it until it doesn't. Additionally the battery tech is getting better all the time, so as the technology improves replacements will get cheaper and existing packs in newer vehicles will maintain their usable life for longer periods - the TCO will just get lower.
And thanks to those same companies lobbying efforts they're still able to enforce copyright on something, which by all rights, should have entered the Public Domain 21 years ago.
So much for the continued progress of the arts and science, Axanar looked like an interesting project - it was the first "real" Trek I'd seen in years and I was looking forward to the feature.
Been wondering if we couldn't use corporate law against them in this case, by pushing for ever longer terms they're missing out on profits - corporations are mandated to maximize profits. Paramount, by lobbying to extend the term lengths, is missing out on that sweet sweet Star Wars money (which should also be in the public domain) and thereby depriving their shareholders of a potential revenue steam.
I'm not a lawyer but I'd have to wonder if these guys could get some Paramount shares and counter sue?
* Mr. Robot - $24.99
* The Americans - $34.99
* Silicon Valley - $24.99
* Veep - $24.99
* Halt and Catch Fire - $24.99
For about the price of a month's worth of cable you could have all the shows you're interested in and save the other 11 months for something else. I did this years ago, picked up an AppleTV - works great for streaming Netflix and my purchased DVD / Blu-Rays I've been ripping into my iTunes Library - and now just get season's passes for the shows I watch. For local events I put a DB8e on my roof, though if you live in an apartment you could mount it to a weighted pole on your balcony or window.
All in, between my Netflix subscription, Crunchyroll (I really love Anime), DramaFever (I really love Korean dramas), and my iTunes seasons passes I spent around $300 annually on my entertainment - when you consider I used to spend almost $1,500 on cable its amazing how much money I saved. I also have more free time, less of it spent channel surfing looking for stuff to watch, and I never have to watch commercials unless I'm watching OTA, which is why I picked up a DVR+.
Unless you're big on sports, and the AppleTV has been getting all the big ones lately (Hockey, Football, whatever - I don't watch sports), or your shows aren't available digitally there really isn't much reason to get cable / satellite anymore. I've been cable free for nearly 4 years now and I can honestly say that I don't miss it.
Note: While I'm Canadian, I'm assuming you're an American and have used the iTunes prices from the US store
Uber Canada Executives: "TAKE OFF EVERY ATTORNEY, FOR GREAT JUSTICE IN THE GREAT WHITE NORTH EH!!"
Except that they're really not, they only offer it to people who already have a Bell - or one of their partners - subscription to a Satellite package. You literally cannot sign up for Crave unless you have one, they won't let you, and I'm not paying the metric fucktonne of money Bell requires to get a Satellite package - not to mention they'd likely want me to sign up for their internet too. Did I also mention you can't even sign up for the service unless you have third party tracking cookies enabled by default on your browser? Fuck that noise.
Shomi, the Rogers equivalent, is pretty much the same except you need - you guessed it - a Rogers, or other partner, cable service in order to get it. And again, they'll likely want you to get their internet on top of it.
So for about $100+ per month I could spend $4 to get a streaming service that has a few extra shows than the Canadian Netflix does or I can save my hundred bucks and spend $8 on Netflix. I cancelled my Bell internet a few years ago, went with Teksavvy - totally worth it, and signed up for Netflix while sticking an antenna on my roof for OTA HD. I honestly don't miss cable, Netflix / Youtube covers nearly all my visual entertainment needs, and for what it doesn't cover I get either OTA or use an iiTunes Seasons Pass for the rest.
One of the problems with trying use the original actors in the film is that a significantly large number of them, including Tim Choate, are dead. Though I do agree with you, Zathras was one of my favourites too.
I'm shocked really at how many are gone - since I have fond memories of the show its really hard to think that 20 years is all that long ago but I was watching a video of the Babylon 5 20th Anniversary Reunion at the Phoenix ComicCon filmed in 2013 a few months ago and they had a Video Memorial showing all the fallen stars of B5 and was surprised at how many were gone.
It makes sense that they want to restart with a new cast and I trust JMS to do it right - I doubt we'll see "Old Sheridan" meeting up with "New Sheridan" like "Old Spock" / "New Spock", unless Boxleitner happens to be playing Sheridan's father in the episode.
I certainly don't disagree with this. There is definitely something to be said about meeting someone in "meat space" versus the online world - there are a lot of missed cues that just can't be picked up via a glowing metal box with some text on it, then again in the online dating realm that's what you have to work with. When that's all there is its to be expected people would be putting their best foot forward, ensuring any photos they post of themselves are as representative as possible to increase their chances of getting responses.
If one can't be bothered to put out a decent representative photo would you really want to meet that person in real life? I've actually seen women state in their online profiles that they were Non-Smokers / Non-Drinkers who then posted profile pictures of themselves smoking a cigarette while holding a beer!
Personally I don't like online dating for the reasons you point out - I have met a number of women I've found physically attractive, even if we didn't really have much in common otherwise, that I'd have never responded to an ad for because they just don't look good on film.
We were talking about whether or not using physical attraction to a person as one of the metrics of selection on a dating website was harsh for people to do. Its interesting how you missed my stating that while physical attraction is certainly a valid choice, its also not the only thing that matters: "Selecting for attraction is just as valid as selecting for ideals and interests. "
Which, ironically, was kind of my point. You need a combination of physical, emotional, and intellectual compatibility along with a decent amount common ideals and interests to have a long lasting relationship. No one thing is more important than the other, they're all equally important.
Then again I'm not sure you'll really understand this - someone who equates the short term lust of a beautiful woman with the deep emotional, intellectual, and physical attraction of someone whom they share a great deal of common ideals and interests with love needs to grow up far more than I do.
What's harsh about it? It actually makes sense.
Selecting for attraction is just as valid as selecting for ideals and interests. If you're going to potentially spend the next 40 plus years with someone its usually best to pick someone you're attracted to physically - even if it feels harsh the person being rejected, better to be with someone who desires you in every way and doesn't shudder at the thought of having to see you naked.
Depends on what you consider "reasonable", how willing you are to think outside the box, and how willing you are to be patient. After listening to my family complain constantly about the $220.00 per month, $2,640.00 annually, we were spending on Cable and Internet we took at look at what was available and what we were willing to give up.
With our Cable cancellation, which was a $120.00 per month and at a different provider from our Internet, we now had $1,440.00 freed up to spend on our video entertainment.
Our iPads have apps for all the major TV Networks, I'm Canadian by the way - just for context, and an Apple TV. The Network apps have nearly every show the day after they air, basically as long as you're willing to wait a day you more or less get them for free. Sometimes they'll have ads which are usually less than 30 seconds, by the time you're reaching for the remote to mute the sound the show is often back on. For the ones that won't play on the Apple TV because of "restrictions" from the rights holder we just all shuffle down to the big screen in the basement where I've got the iMac hooked up, we open a browser window on the big screen and watch it from the Network website.
This a-la carte method of TV, where we only watch the shows we want, costs us all of $0.00 total.
We also like movies and and a bit of variety. For a decent selection of older movies and TV, much of which we haven't seen so its all new to us, we got Netflix for 8.99 per month.
I love Anime, so I picked up Crunchyroll for 11.99 per month.
We also picked up the Crackle, Viki, Vimeo, and Youtube Apps to round things out and give us some more variety - all free by the way.
At this point the entertainment services we do buy work out to just 251.76 annually, an amazing savings of approximately 1,188.24 annually. That money saved can be used for other things. For example the shows we can't get through the "free" channels, or that we just want to see in higher quality, we simply buy them. Some, when they're not too expensive at iTunes, we'll get a Season Pass for - even though they're available through the Network websites I still get Arrow, S.H.I.E.L.D., and Doctor Who via Season Passes because I like the higher quality. I think its reasonable to pay $35.00 - $40.00 for 22 45 minute episodes (1.60 to 1.80 each) as experience has shown the Blu-Ray will likely cost $60.00. I just think of it like a rental or magazine subscription that works out to the equivalent of a doughnut and a drink at the Timmies once a month.
For some shows the online options are simply too expensive and unreasonable to buy, I personally refuse to pay more than physical price for an HD season of TV on Blu-Ray, so we just wait and buy them when it comes out on Blu-Ray / DVD - or, if we're being patient, will wait until it hits Netflix.
Since much of what we used to watch we could still get via the Network websites and Apps, we spent just over, I think, $300.00 on TV & Movie DVDs / Blu-Rays last year - though I'd have to pull out the receipts and add them up. About the only thing we were missing out on was the first run movies and sports, if you're big on either you might have to make a bit of a sacrifice there. It wasn't a problem for us since we don't much like sports and we've found that first run movies we want to see bad enough to rent are often ones we want to buy anyway.
Even the prices you stated in your post aren't really all that unreasonable when you think it through, $2.99 / $3.99 for a for 45 minute show is about the same price as people spend for a "Specialty" Coffee at the Starbucks, a magazine / newspaper they'll read once and then throw away, a beer at the pub, etc... I personally wouldn't buy it at that price either, its getting too close to physical purchase cost and I'd much rather wait and have the physical item in hand. Still, if it was a show I desperately wanted to see it could certainly be justified - especially since I could afford it since I'd just freed up that $1,440.00 I was wasting on Cable.
Except it does, it really does.
"Old Khan" is still, without a doubt, arguably the best film in the entire Trek franchise. Even after all this time it still holds up as an engaging story with just the right amount of character development and action. I've seen it more than 40 times, its one of my absolute "go to" favourites, and I still cry when Spock dies at the end - every single time, without fail. Say what you will about Shatner's acting in general, that one scene is so emotionally touching and moving - the grief and hopelessness he exudes at the death of his best friend, its hard not to be moved by it.
The "New Khan", I laughed my ass off at New Spock's "NooooooooOOOOooooo" Vader moment - as did most of the theatre I watched it with on opening night. It was utterly pathetic, devoid of any emotion at all. It was the big death scene and it played like a cheap joke, a pale comparison to a 30+ year old movie which did it far far better than J.J. was able of coming up with.
Not saying I didn't enjoy the new film, it was a decent action flick, but it was a pale imitation of the original. I definitely won't be watching it 40+ times, when I want to watch a good "Wrath of Khan" story I already have the far superior original to choose from.
I used to speed walk with my old 5th Gen iPod with the 30GB spinning disk in it, tucked it into shirt pocket where it bounced around quite a bit. After all this time it still works just fine, though the age of the battery means I barely get 6 hours out of it and something happened to the audio jack recently so I can't hear anything out of it anymore; I've been debating on getting it fixed because it just works so well.
Even though I had bought a 3rd Gen 64GB iPod Touch, I kept using my old 5th Gen iPod to hold the extra bits of my music collection that wouldn't fit on the Touch. Now that the audio jack is borked I'm hoping the new Touch, which usually comes out in the fall, will finally enter the modern age of storage and have 128GB on it so I can finally upgrade and put all my music in once spot.
Granted my 5th Gen is beat up and covered in scratches, it's well used and it still works - audio issues aside - so I'm betting even if you had one of the First Gen units you'd could get away with being a bit rough and tough with it.
I hear you there, people keep giving me their old crap - the 486 DX4-100 came from a friend who was working on an upgrade from a 386. He was about to install the motherboard when he knocked it to the floor put a nasty crack in it, since he'd bought the chip and board used and hadn't sunk in a whole lot of cash he just used it as an excuse to upgrade to a Pentium. Since the chip was fairly well protected by socket and fan, and my motherboard could run it with a BIOS update, I figured I'd try it (I wanted an excuse to upgrade to one them new Pentiums too) and ended up with a modest speed boost that lasted me another 4 years until I bought the K6-2.
Since I bought the Mac Mini in 2005, and the iMac in 2009, I haven't used the K62 or 486 all that much but I do know that they still work - I play the odd game in Windows 98 or DOS game that doesn't work all that well on XP or I can't be bothered to mess around with the DOSBox settings for.
In all the years I've been building computers I can name only twice where I ever had the opportunity to upgrade; once with an old 466 when I went from a DX2-50 to a DX4-100; another time when I upgraded a K6-2 333 to a K6-2 500. Most of the time when it came time to "upgrade" there had been so many changes to the bus types, socket types, memory types, etc... it was just easier to start over from scratch than try to pick an upgrade from a narrow list of parts which often cost a fortune, while often only giving a moderate speed boost, because they were now considered "specialty" equipment for an obsolete architecture.
Granted, there are people who will insist that they've been able to upgrade their systems multiple times - but I'm not talking about those compulsive types who need the newest graphics card every other week. Most people I've talked to will buy a machine and keep it for 2-4 years before thinking its time buy a new one, by then everything has changed and the existing machine is mostly obsolete and so they have to start new.
You must not be eating healthy. And, like most people, you're forgetting to add the prep and cleaning time. Lets try this again, shall we?
When you add it all up, cooking fresh takes a minimum of 2 hours, every day, prepping, cooking, and cleaning up after yourself. 4 hours if you decide to make a lunch that isn't yesterday's leftovers. Throw an extra hour in for grocery shopping every other day and you're up to three to five hours, daily. And before you go all "bullshit" on me, or try to insinuate that I'm making this up, I USED TO DO THIS! I've wasted hours of my life cooking, prepping, cleaning.
We only get 24 hours in a day. I sleep for 8 of them, work for 8 of them, spend two of them travelling back and forth work, and I used to spend 4 hours - EVERY DAY - eating, cooking, cleaning, prepping, going grocery shopping. I used to have a grand total of 2 whole hours of free time, every day. It was stupid, and a complete waste of my time. I sat down one day and figured it out and by increasing my food budget by about 20% - 30%, I could go out to eat for both lunch and dinner every day for about 30 to 40 minutes each and it wasn't all that hard finding healthy choices either. Now I pay the restaurant / cafeteria at work to cook, prep, and clean and I get back that 4 hours - I'd call that a fair trade.
In the context of the game what you say makes sense, but we're talking TV or comics here. A medium where we're going to be introduced to a band of characters, their ship, the people they run with, and a familiarity with their histories all as part of a long story arc leading up the Battle of Asakai. By the time we get to the battle we'll have had so much invested in the characters we've come to know and love, the outcome of the battle will be just as important to us as it was to you when you played it.
I didn't need to live in the 24th century to feel connected to the the battle for DS9, my investment in the story of the people who lived there made me feel connected. If the cast and crew of EvE Online: The Series do their jobs right I won't need to live there to feel connected to the Battle of Asakai either.
Better be good with that trigger finger if you get that six star wanted level, no way you're outrunning those fracking Snow Speeders and their damned grappling lines - they're taking you down every time.
You're kidding right? That's a real thing? I was just trying to be funny.
Holy fuck, its on Netflix! I know I'm watching on this Valentine's Day!
Forget Hollywood, Bollywood is where its at!
Gun fire, explosions, and the totally implausible "I can't believe no one died and the car is still going" car flips all while the dialogue from the last hour is retold through a deeply moving song and dance number. Its a plucky love story about the rookie cop, who thinks she's plain and boring despite being portrayed by one of the hottest actresses in India, falling in love with the nerdy nice guy who's down on his looks, despite being played by one of the hottest actors in India, who just can't get his car to stop.
The only thing standing between them and their love, outside of the racing car, are the bumbling bank robbers who think the procession of speeding vehicles quickly gaining on them are actually trying to arrest them. For laughs they'll have the cars speed through a bus terminal and across the decks of cruise ships while continuously cutting to reaction shots of a guy who looks a lot like Dennis Hopper.
I remember when I was a little kid watching the episode where they talked about Doctor only being allowed twelve Regenerations (I think it was twelve, I was a kid at the time) and crying over it. I never wanted the Doctor to die and I thought it was mean of the Timelords to tell the Doctor he could only have so many Regenerations before he died. My old man, who was a huge Doctor Who fan himself, pulled me up into his lap and told me this story about how "Regeneration Juice" was very expensive and very hard to make. That in order to ensure they had enough for all the Timelords and their children, and to keep them from fighting over it and use it all up quickly, they they all had to agree to share.
I doubt its Cannon, just a silly little story told to a crying child. But if its got any basis in truth then with there being only one Timelord, and no other Timelords to share with, the "juice" available to the Doctor during Regeneration would be pretty much unlimited.
Or, more realistically, when the RegenValue was originally chosen the BBC didn't have any clue that the show would remain as popular as it has and continue to be produced even now. They probably figured 12, or whatever number was chosen, was safe because they were probably quite convinced the show would have been cancelled before it ever reached that number.
If we're going to have the Doctor start meeting up with the Disney Kids then my vote is for Selena Gomez, her portrayal of Alex on Wizards of Waverly Place often stole the show. You've piqued my curiosity, I'd certainly be interested in seeing the guy who finds all the trouble paired with the girl who makes all the trouble just to see what kind of trouble they'd get into together.
That's only if you luck out and get a high enough roll on the missile hit table to get all 20 missiles to hit and get all four rolls to hit the same spot. My personal favourite tactic is to take an Archer, park him in a corner, use a few scout mechs for scouting ahead in cover as spotters, and then pop off long range shots hoping to get enough 5 point clusters that one of them hits the head.
Head hits always cause stun damage to the pilot and gives a chance they'll pass out, at the very least it'll increase the to hit modifiers on that mech for the rest of the game - at least they did when I played years and years ago.
I don't play much anymore, the game simply takes way too long to play - I'd go to friends houses early Friday night and play until late Sunday and still not finish an actual game. The only time we'd really finish a game in a reasonable amount of time was lance on lance, but even then it can take the better part of a day and a half to finish a game.