How exactly is this NSFW? Because he says "fuck"? Otherwise there isn't a damned thing that goes on here that you wouldn't see on a daytime soap opera.

And you think leaving it in the control of Comcast is somehow better? How's that been working out for us the past 20 years? Not so great considering how badly the Internet here compares to what's offered in other countries where it's heavily regulated, open to competition, and/or subsidized by the federal government.

The Republicans will oppose it simply because it's something Obama wants. Have you not been paying attention the last 6 years?

I want to see Obama put forth a recommendation of eliminating taxes altogether for anyone or any company making $1 million or more, just so we can watch Republican's heads explode.

Sorry to nitpick, but the 2007 remake is called Bionic Woman — no "The". The Bionic Woman is the original starring Lindsay Wagner.

I've been saying for a long time we need a new bold, cutting-edge live action TV show that takes place in the current-day prime universe (~15 years post-Voyager) along with an animated show that takes place in Starfleet Academy, something that will get the kiddies hooked (and buying lots and lots of merch).

Paramount owns the rights to the movies while CBS owns the rights to the TV shows and the franchise in general. CBS oversees and has to approve everything that goes into STO. It is what CBS calls "loose canon", in that it's considered canon until a TV show or movie contradicts it.

It's actually irrelevant where the bridge is. Your ship is basically protected by shields. Without them beam weapons and torpedos would slice/blow right thru your ship and having your bridge buried in the middle wouldn't save your ass.

If you were out to annihilate your enemy you wouldn't even bother with the bridge,…

Actually I believe it is considered canon until otherwise contradicted by a TV show or movie. Everything in the game is overseen and vetted by CBS before implemented. Cryptic can't just do whatever they want, they have to seek approval beforehand, and sometimes CBS says no. As the game takes place about 10 years after…

Corvette convertibles are nearly exclusively drove by old men or chicks that look like porn stars. Miatas are a close 2nd.

So basically, unless you're part of the Gawker inner circle there is no point in commenting about anything because your comments will never been seen. Good to know; I won't bother anymore.

See but that's the point. His sexuality is really just a tiny bit of the character and is not necessarily central to the theme of the show. So why not just include it in a matter-of-fact, no-big-deal sorta way instead of giving an answer that clearly indicates it's something that was discussed and rejected, or in…

You think a penis is weird??? Have you ever taken a good long look at a vagina? Those things are positively terrifying! Like something out of a Lovecraftian nightmare.

OK, what did the gays do now?

And again, you're 100% wrong. Actions are NOT speech. Continuing to try and assert they are only makes you look foolish. Please stop while you're already behind.

I'm disputing what happened. I'm disputing that it shouldn't have. Yes, our currently laws allow an employer to fire anyone at anytime, including for things they say on their own free time, via their own personal accounts. And whether you believe it or not, it's wrong. It IS a free speech issue, one our Constitution…

Well, that's not really true. He posted it from his personal twitter account, not an account given to him by his employer. The topic had nothing to do with his employer, or in any way related to them or their industry. What he said and the way he said it had absolutely no bearing on the company, and whether or not…

Yeah, I have to disagree. It's always easy to filter out the bullshit. And if a news source published an article by an anonymous author/reporter that turned out to libelous then the newspaper would be on the hook, so I don't see how that's a concern. In most cases of libel or slander there is almost always a money…

You are referring to the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment. I was referring to the idea and concept of free speech in general. I'm fully aware that the 1st Amendment only protects one's speech from government censure. I was addressing the concept from the standpoint of the OP who says this is the reason why…

But the core essence of free speech is that, by design, it's intended as protection to allow you to say things that are unpopular. That's the whole point. You don't need "free speech" if what you're saying is the norm, and what everyone else finds acceptable.

Well when you buy the commercial "natural" peanut butter that separates they say that refrigeration retards the separation. But I'm with you, I don't put my PB in the fridge.