KenJennings

I've heard a number of complaints that Picard suffers from slow pacing... I couldn't disagree more. The deliberate pacing reminds me of a show like Better Call Saul, where the story has room to breathe and offer the attention to detail that Discovery so badly lacked as it haphazardly skipped across the touchpoints it needed to hit to stretch the plot. No, it seems that Picard is paced perfectly. And Patrick Stewart is absolutely CRUSHING IT as an actor.

The first episode gets an 8.5/10 from me. I love the deliberate pacing. I love that there is actually a message and heart to the story. I love the feel that Patrick Stewart has brought back to Jean Luc. The small glimpses of 24th (25th?) century aesthetic we saw were visually on point. There was a little bit of ham fisted exposition to get the story set up, and that compounded the discomfort of the interview scene. I felt like that part could've been handled better. It's a lot of background to establish, and I wish they could've established it more clearly and gracefully. But outside of that misstep, I loved it. I can't wait for more.

The complaints about Discovery are far beyond that. Discovery failed in mission, tone and attention to detail. But the superficial wokeness was an issue. I don't think nearly so many fans would complain about a liberal or progressive narrative, if the subject matter is thoughtful and serves as a meaningful parable. If I look at Discovery, there is no political message to the series. Instead of thoughtfully advancing a classically progressive vision as previous Star Treks did, Discovery leaned on tokenism and thoughtless identitarianism. Rather than give us a moral or ethical case for equal rights or diverse thought, Discovery leaned on tropes to showcase representation. They objectified the subjects of their identity politics as badges of honor to pander to the crowd. Yes, Discovery featured the first prominent gay characters on the bridge crew of a Star Trek series; but what did it actually mean? Where was the communication, where was the discussion? If that's not an issue they feel like covering- I'm ok with that. I'm 100% on board with the representation alone. But that representation is no replacement for a parable. So what issues DID Discovery cover? Where did Discovery plant a line in the sand and make a statement of morals or ideology? I don't recall any. They paid lip service to the secular humanism of Gene Roddenberry for meaningless moments, but failed to deliver anything thoughtful. Glad to say, I don't expect that treatment from Michael Chabon and the Star Trek Picard team. I expect Picard to be challenging, thoughtful, and rhetorical. I expect it to make a case for its beliefs and stand on principle, as Jean Luc Picard always has.

are they releasing the whole season or is it a one episode a week thing? One episode a week.

With the show launching in about 12 hours, I'm getting very excited. I'll be staying up tonight to watch the moment it goes live. Season two has already been ordered, and will be including Whoopi Goldberg, presumably reprising her role as Guinan. It's also been hinted that season two could involve Worf or other TNG castmembers. Also encouraging is that season two's showrunner is a throwback to the 'Berman era' (90s) of Star Trek, who wrote and worked on some terrific episodes of Voyager and Enterprise. Despite the doubts, I'm feeling confident that this is going to be the show that sets up Star Trek's return to glory.

http://imageshack.com/a/img924/6960/ZCY8SX.png

lol, right? I was on my feet cheering, and I would be if he did it again.

I think this one is my favorite. I'm not familiar with the guy who wrote it, but it made me smile.

The treasure of a life is a measure of love and respect The way you live, the gifts that you give In the fullness of time It's the only return that you expect The future disappears into memory With only a moment between Forever dwells in that moment Hope is what remains to be seen

Absolutely terrible. The last few years make so much more sense knowing he's been fighting. Peace and love to his family and to Alex and Ged.

I dislike that division winners automatically get home field advantage over wildcard teams. I don't have a problem with the way they're seeded, but better record should always get home field advantage.

I have an old 75th anniversary Toronto Maple Leafs toque that I don't really know why I have, or where I got it from. But it's been my stand by for ages.

I think Hand. Cannot. Erase. should really be #1. But it's very cool to see both of them in the top-10.

Probably my single least favorite person in the NFL.

I'm sure his is a face everyone remembers from somewhere, given his truly prolific career as a character actor. But to me, he'll always be the great Odo from Star Trek DS9. I just watched him as Reverend Oliver in The Patriot about a week ago. I'm really sad to hear that he's gone. :(

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/rene-auberjonois-actor-featured-in-star-trek-and-altman-films-dies-at-79/2019/12/08/3f59c822-1a0d-11ea-b4c1-fd0d91b60d9e_story.html

Men typically are less likely to be overtly social than women. Women are culturally more likely to have strong social circles, where the pressure is to fit in, rather than risk being outcast. Men are typically much more content to play the lone wolf; almost desiring the outcast status in many cases. Men romanticize individualism and solitary roguishness. Rush is a band that played to the outcasts in society. Rush spoke to the strength of ego and soothed the loneliness that is symptomatic an inner-focused life. Rush said it was cool to stand out, to cut against the culture, and to embrace your nerdy passions- even when that leaves you standing alone. And that's why Rush hasn't been seen as "cool" until recently. They bucked trends, they subverted expectations. To people with strong, entangled social connections; that's almost anathema. Of course, anyone can be more or less social than anyone else as an individual, but in terms of social trends I think the bias follows gender more than incidentally. ETA: lol... I didn't realize I posted in this thread 8 years ago. I said almost the same thing then. Even used some of the same keywords. Damn, I'm predictable.

Like virtually all things, music is a blend of objective and subjective. We can measure frequencies, volumes, scales, time signatures, etc... We mechanically understand music, how it is produced, and even how to replicate certain tones and vibes that seem subjective. But in the end, the question of "Does it sounds good?" is going to produce a purely subjective answer. So to the question at hand: "Does music have objectively measureable quality?" Yes. Of course it does. But it also has entirely subjective qualities too.

Not to mention just the existence of HD television. We see so much more detail in a game than we did just 15 years ago. The million dollar question is why the world of sports is so slow to utilize technology to get the right call. If we can see it, so can they. We need sky judges to compliment the refs on the field. There should be a team of officials seeing every camera angle live and making second reviews on the officiating in real time.

They were pretty close in 2014, but abandoned that package to go the exact opposite way. I know the serious concern NASCAR has about cars going much over 200 is cars going airborne. I get that. But more horsepower can be tempered by means other than restriction or aerodynamics. They should've kept the horsepower and downforce package where it was, but then reduced the width of the tires to diminish handling without taking too much downforce. They need to look at ways to make the cars handle worse, not better. Force the drivers to control their horsepower by forcing them to break the throttle. Let the drivers be in charge, they will figure it out.

I always thought the lyrics of subdivisions were self-contradictory and needlessly angsty. It speaks, probably intentionally, from the perspective of youthful ignorance- but has always come across shallow to me. One example, right at the beginning you have these lines back to back: "...in-between the bright lights and the far, unlit unknown. Growing up, it all seems so one-sided..." One accurately portrays suburban life as the moderate. As the in-between. The barrier between the urban and rural- both physically and culturally. But immediately thereafter, Peart calls that one-sided. No he doesn't. He said it seems one-sided. If your supposition that the song's POV is that of youth is correct (and I think it is), then that line makes perfect sense. When you're an angsty youth, what seems and what is can be damn hard to differentiate. That's fair, but as far as the perspective of angsty youth goes; it felt trite and unconvincing when I was young, and I feel less moved by it today then I did then.

I always thought the lyrics of subdivisions were self-contradictory and needlessly angsty. It speaks, probably intentionally, from the perspective of youthful ignorance- but has always come across shallow to me. One example, right at the beginning you have these lines back to back: "...in-between the bright lights and the far, unlit unknown. Growing up, it all seems so one-sided..." One accurately portrays suburban life as the moderate. As the in-between. The barrier between the urban and rural- both physically and culturally. But immediately thereafter, Peart calls that one-sided. That doesn't make sense. The extremes, not the "in between" would be the one sided existence; with no contrasts to turn to on either side. The perspective of later rush bears more seasoning. With lyrics like: "If their lives were exotic and strange, They would likely have gladly exchanged them for something a little more plain, maybe something a little more sane." If that's not the difference between being in your 20s and your 30s, I don't know what is.

The last four races of the year were each absolutely dominated by one of the championship 4. This is the "excitment" they've generated. This high downforce package is absolutely terrible. It's produced good racing a couple of times at the more high banked tracks, but the flatter, more handling dependant tracks have turned into an absolute snore. This is professional racing, it should not be easy to drive these cars. Give them horsepower, and take their downforce. Narrow the tires and make them have to roll out of the throttle in EVERY corner. Nothing is worse for the sport than allowing the drivers to hold it wide open all the time. I'm afraid nothing's going to help NASCAR at this point. 2019 was the worst season of racing I can recall. Until they clean house of everyone in management, starting with Steve O'Donnell; it's not going to get better. But hey, 'they like what they're seeing'.

Mine was Stevie Nicks' Landslide at a Perkins.