Craig Arko

Netflix version of A Series of Unfortunate Events is a source of many good laughs.

As long as it's not Mike Pence, we're good.

Bill is a big baseball fan, student of the science of baseball, and inventor of some baseball gear. http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/mlb-baseball-bill-nye-the-science-guy-baseball-bat-051016 http://www.geekwire.com/2016/bill-nye-geeks-science-baseball-fango-ball-retriever-invention/ http://m.mlb.com/cutfour/2016/05/10/177314372/watch-bill-nye-explain-baseball-science

My mistake. Thanks. Hawkeye is still Natty Bumppo.

Uncas. Alan Alda wasn't Hawkeye, either.

Your loss. Ken Watanabe is a damn good actor.

That was Ken Watanabe. Little bit of cinematic history back atcha.

Sorry I even mentioned it, folks. I'll delete the post.

I've seen King Lear before but still thought Ran was a pretty decent film. In any event, I promise not to force anyone to watch anything against their will. Including the 10-part miniseries on Einstein coming soon on Nat Geo.

You're right. Might as well go back to discussing the Doomsday Clock. 2-1/2 minutes; maybe they should make a (very short) series about that.

On the bright side, Ironfist is a little over a month away.

Would it be asking too much for a return of Torchwood?

So many shows, so few hours to invest.

So the verdict is that the production quality and performances are comparable to The Crown, but the story itself is more complex with many characters to keep track of. Sounds like it's worth diving in.

Julie watched it. I'll ask her what she thought. For me, I can't put the image of Clara Oswalt and the Doctor out of my mind. At least not yet.

Although not an apples-to-apples comparison; overall for me it falls well short of the Jeremy Brett Holmes series. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqRz-rdp_sM

Oh, man! Sorry about that.

Hawk and Hunter are going to be part of the FSN broadcast team, as well.

If I win, it's yours.

What's actually holding up the Dozier trade? And the testosterone level contained therein.

Sigh. http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/BS/BS704_HypothesisTesting-ANOVA/BS704_HypothesisTesting-Anova_print.html

http://www.statisticshowto.com/trimmed-mean/

All of which takes us back again to the Mission Statement of the University of Minnesota. http://regents.umn.edu/sites/regents.umn.edu/files/policies/Mission_Statement.pdf Which does not mention bowl games, athlete villages, or very expensive buyouts of athletic department officials contracts who are are found to be detrimental to the institution.

Okay, let's look specifically at The University of Minnesota. http://www.twincities.com/2015/11/15/umn-athletics-budget-shortfall-is-among-biggest-in-big-ten/ "The study focused on colleges that rely on student fees to cover losses at money-losing sports programs. That’s not the case at the U, where the sports subsidies are built into the general operating budget."

Of course it costs taxpayers money, especially those taxpayers who have kids (or spouses) going to those schools. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2014/12/12/who-actually-funds-intercollegiate-athletic-programs/#13137d0b5b99 "Often the breakdown of these fees (which, at public institutions, can run, on average, an extra $2,000-5,000 per year), is not specific or transparent to the student. Factor in future interest payments for students who are using loans to pay for college, and the costs of these fees to the student can be much higher. What do these fees fund? Generally, they’re allocated to eight specific areas: health services, student social centers, debt service on student administration and social centers (such as a student union), student government and publications, recreation, cultural programs, and intercollegiate athletics. By far, the largest student fee is the last – the intercollegiate athletic fee – which can be upwards of 80% of the total fee amount at many institutions not in Power Five conferences. Conventional wisdom says that intercollegiate athletics is a boon to colleges and universities; that it’s wildly profitable; attracts new students; enhances fundraising; and, boosts the university’s profile. Yet these are myths, often perpetuated by the media – and by the universities themselves. The truth is that very few college athletic programs make a profit; instead, most are heavily subsidized by student fees and other institutional subsidies. Furthermore, these fee amounts aren’t static. They’re increasing annually."