Since Moffat took over? I believe you mean, "Since 'Genesis of the Daleks', the last unreservedly good Dalek episode." Arguably, "Dalek" was a good episode- it certainly reestablished their menace, but it was weakened by its deus ex machina ending (no one did anything to defeat the Dalek, it just gave up because…

My impression was that the new ones fell into the category of, "We're not saying they're Mondasians, but…"

Look closely at the Cyberman head on the ground- that's an old-style Mondasian head, not a Cybus head.

If you add some dinosaurs, the show's suddenly Future War. I hope Robert Z'Dar is inside one of those future cybersuits.

It seems that everybody's missing the fact that Helena left Cosima's salvation behind… the tank full of embryos. There are stem cells galore in there.

Here and there, she crosses over into full-on villain territory.

No. Because any simulation of sufficient verisimilitude is identical to the system that it's simulating.

And personally, that's mostly my approach- I avoid the personal pronoun where possible, and try and make it possible where it isn't. The proper gendered pronoun is a topic I have so little interest in that I don't even like to think about it. Avoiding it is easier.

Them and their are plurals. "I was talking to Pat, and their car is broken," is a bit of a grammatical mess. Mind you, I don't think, "I was talking to Pat, and xyr car is broken," is any better. Neologisms probably don't help things. Personally, I think we should ditch personal pronouns all together- I'm perfectly…

They've been predicting this era since the 90s. They've had time.

In this case, it actually makes sense- they want to show off his scars.

Honestly, that was better than Knights of Badassdom.

On a scale of the Federation vs. 20th Century Earth, yes- it's an unfair relationship and the Earth is at a severe disadvantage.

The prime directive, while flawed, is valid for the same reason the Doctor should never have sex with a human companion. There is no way the relationship can be set on anything like equal footing. Even with the best interests, there's always going to be a power imbalance that makes one side of the relationship a victim…

Yes, because pedantry is pointing out that the claims for the product are not possible. My initial comment was predicting a lot of disappointment- people who get this aren't getting what they think.

Mind you, a 10% swing, year-over-year isn't really that much. Violent crime rates are highly variable.

Again, you miss my point. They claim that it can reproduce a color by scanning it. I'm claiming that this is false. I'm claiming that most of the time, the color you think you're scanning isn't the color your eye is seeing, and the color that the ink is going to output isn't going to be anything like the color that…

You're not really following me. I never claimed that- I claimed that color is much more complicated that just capturing the colorspace values at a certain point on an object. You can sample an orange, but the output color- even under ideal conditions- isn't going to look the same as the orange itself.

What makes you think a standard photo printer outputs anything close to true color? But that aside, one thing a photo printer can do is vary color across pixels. Metamerism, or the way color changes according to the viewing angle, is a huge part of our perception of color. A photo printer can capture that, because the…

I predict a lot of people being disappointed by this toy. It isn't going to work like people think, because there are a lot of visual factors that go into color, many of which simply can't be replicated by ink- any ink.