A month or so ago, during a game of Squadron Strike, my opponent had his ship do a 180 degrees flip.  When he went to allocate his shots, he was surprised to learn that in addition to flipping 180 degrees, his ship had also rolled 90 degrees.

Things one can do to help promote Squadron Strike and Attack Vector:Tactical:

  1. Play the game(s).

    This is really the number one thing to do.

    People want to buy fun, not theoretical fun. Think of it this way: Are you more likely to go to a movie that your friend said looks awesome or one that your friend said is awesome after they saw it?

    I recently found out that a manager at my company picked up AV:T because he heard about it while talking to my co-worker and AV:T opponent.

So, the next Doctor will be a woman.

Not a big surprise as the series has been building up the idea for years, including a few test runs with Missy and the General to gauge reaction.

Of course, the moronic part of the internet has not taken it well. Accusations of pandering to the SJW crowd abound.

I seem to recall the exact same thing happening with the Battlestar Galactic reboot when it was announced that Starbuck would be a woman.

Personally, I think that it is a good sign. Doctor Who needs to be pushed out of its rut. The last few seasons have had too many good stories ruined as they didn't dare break with expectations. A great example is season 9's The Witch's Familiar. The interaction between a dying Davros and the Doctor was riveting. Two ancient enemies simply taking the last measure of each other. It was great until the writers took the cheap route and revealed that it was all just a trap

 

The current Atomic Robo storyline (http://www.atomic-robo.com/atomicrobo/the-dark-age-page-1) is a pretty good summery of why I've written off mainstream comics.

Comic series are constantly being rebooted / relauched / reconned. Combined with the mini-series and spin-offs, it is difficult to follow. Additionally, "shocking" revelations and plot-twists only survive until a new writer is assigned the character.

PETA wants Warhammer 40K figures to stop wearing fur.

What the fuck?

These are metal and plastic models set in an imaginary universe where the number one wall/floor/codpiece decoration is a human skull.

And PETA is worried that some of the models are depicted as wearing fur?

There are days where I hate capitalism.

Last July, I ordered a very special coffee much that was being developed by Ember. (https://embertech.com/) The mug was funded by an Indigogo campaign a year earlier and the web-site stated that it was due out in July. Five months later it finally started shipping, sort of....

In the intervening 5 months, Ember made a deal to sell the mug at select Starbucks and on Starbucks' online store. Add in a few foodie blogs declaring that the Ember Mug is the "must have" gift for coffee lovers and suddenly there is a large demand for the mug. Heck, there are Ember Mugs being scalped on Ebay that have bids that are almost twice the MSRP.

So, Starbucks immediately sells out and Ember priorities shipments to Starbucks over those that funded them via the Indigogo campaign and through pre-orders. Ember lists my order as "backordered until Jan 2017".

I understand the reasons why. Ember already has my money and they want to get more sales and exposure while it is a "hot" item during the holiday season.

Under the rules of capitalism where profit is king, it is perfectly acceptable, even expected behavior. However, it means that I won't be getting my mug until next year.

Despite my best efforts to take a break from the political cesspool, the story of Mr. Pence's theater trip has bubbled onto my timeline. So I have been thinking about the idiocy of the latest round of "Religious Freedom" bills that have been making the rounds.

The root problem with the bills is that Religious Beliefs are not well-defined.

Allowing religion to be a valid reason for denial of goods and services is a terrible idea. The primary reason is that the boundaries can not be objectively tested and it would require the Court to determine what a person's religion actually means.

Take the classic example of a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay-wedding.

Even among religious scholars there is much debate as to whether the Bible allows sales of goods and services to sinners. Some scholars point to 1 Corinthians disallowing it while others argue that it does not.

Even if 1 Corinthians disallows the sales of goods and services to sinners, wouldn't that mean all sales of goods and services and not just Wedding services?

If religious scholars can not agree on what the Bible says, do we really want the Court to make a determination?