I don't get the reference.

Never mind Chip's birth, what I want to know about the Beast's castle is why are they using the people-things for everything?

Are critics expected to be anti-military for some reason?

I thought it was pretty good overall, but I basically agree with you. Way too much has been made of Inception's supposed intricacy and depth.

And the same goes for V, The Event, at least the first season of Stargate Universe (haven't seen it past that), and Terra Nova.

Steven Moffat drops the bombshell that they're not planning to make any two-parters, with every episode being a standalone

I like how your post has every single cliche used to defend shitty movies.

Hong Kong.

The term 'epigenetics' refers to any mechanism of inheritance that does not involve changes to the DNA sequence. DNA methylation is one example, and the RNA signalling discussed here is another.

Wait, so your chances of winning in one of the games are determined by the amount of money you have, so if that amount changes independently of the game, your chances are affected?

"Could high-heeled foot implants actually happen in the near future?"

Are they trying to save future Earth? I thought they were just trying to send back as many people as possible (but then I wasn't really paying attention).

Meh.

depression is known to be associated with self-loathing - which is very much a form of hatred

It was more of an axe, which, for some odd reason, they kept calling a scythe.

It had its strong points, it had its weak points, but overall I'd say it's in the "actually watchable" category, which puts it head and shoulders above the vast majority of new sci-fi shows from the last few years (see Falling Skies for an example of the opposite).

Fair point, I suppose, but it's hard to imagine a set of morals, tastes, and beliefs that would invalidate the statement that characters that don't do anything are boring.

in an effort to find out whether enough random typing can eventually recreate the entire works of William Shakespeare

Yeah, they kind of downplay the fact that the end result is just 100 YouTube videos mashed together - the neural data is used to pick the videos, but is not actually used in creating the final video in any way.

I actually don't think this helps you with creating real images from brain activity at all, no matter how crude. They have a model which predicts how similar the neural response to viewing two images/clips will be, that doesn't really lend itself to reconstructing the image.