I've been to Vegas 50+ times, so I've probably taken 200+ taxi rides there. The most obnoxious behavior by a driver that I've ever seen or even heard of is talking loudly on the phone the entire ride. Not all of them are friendly, but I don't need them to be. No one has ever tried to "take me for a ride", probably because the strip hotels are in sight of the airport. And if you want a tip so that it ensures they won't take you on a long route when being picked up at the airport, say "take Tropicana" if you're going to the south side of the strip, or "take Swenson" if you're going to the north side. It tells them you've been there before and know how to get around. It's hardly the worst place to catch a cab. For that, I'd have to nominate New York City, which fits the description of one of the above posters who complained about very little English, no idea of how to get places in the quickest way possible, and most of all body odor. I can remember at least a dozen rides where the stench of the driver was overwhelming. If you really want to make cab rides better, require the drivers to shower before every shift.

Who is "they"? If you mean the taxi drivers then you are wrong. The taxi drivers (at least the many drivers that I asked specifically about it) wanted the monorail so that the small fare rides ($10-$25) would mostly go away. They make more money the more time the car is occupied, and sitting in line at the airport or a busy strip hotel to pick up a fare is wasted time.

It's mediocre crap to you because you're closed-minded. Everything has to conform to your standards. Just enjoy a film for what it is: fiction. If you can't do that, then don't watch them and then complain about them. Just makes you look like an idiot.

No one has been steered away from science because of fiction. Not one of these films has ever made anyone think, "Hmmm. Maybe I'll change my major from Physics to French Military History because the science in that film sucked." You're just being ridiculous.

Who needs profound thought from Sandra Bullock or Matthew McConaughey? I just need to be entertained. I'm smart enough to know what's not real, and if I'm having a good enough time, then I just don't care. And maybe discussion about what's not real in a fictional setting will inspire someone to find out how it would really work and become a scientist/mathematician/whatever. If they're bored with something like, "Well the radiation would really kill him in about three days, so he has to have layers and layers of material that will stop it, so he couldn't do anything interesting at all in this movie because he's basically wrapped up like a mummy...", then they'll be bored with science.

And for the record, I love Moon. And Sunshine. And Gravity. And I'm sure that I'll love The Martian. All for different reasons, and not one of them is Science(!). But you'll hate anything that isn't 100% perfect for one reason. Just go read books or watch videos about momentum and escape velocity and whatever else you feel aggrieved about in these films and you'll be much happier.

This is about how mad I get when a movie takes place in Las Vegas, and someone is driving down the strip Northbound past The Bellagio, and in the next cut they're driving Southbound past The Stratosphere.

It's just a movie. Chill. No one ever claimed either of those movies was 100% scientifically accurate, and plot rules all when it comes to fiction. If you need to (and it sounds like you really really need to), just pretend that all movies (not just sci-fi) take place in a parallel universe where everything works differently (like this guy ever being able to date this gal).

Me too. I mean how could he claim it after his lifetime?

Why waste paper getting a receipt? Your credit card company has a record of the transaction.

Living in the Southeast USA, I'm exposed to many Republicans. Basically my entire family, extended family, and at least half of my friends and co-workers are Republican. I have never heard any of them use the term "ape" to describe a black person. Some are mildly prejudiced, but none are bigots or racists. I've known a few bigots (likely what you think of as racists) in my life and they have invariably been Democrats, probably due to the lingering legacy of the Dixiecrats from decades ago. I'm not saying that all Democrats everywhere are bigots or that all racially motivated bigots are Democrats, because blanket statements like yours are rarely even remotely true.

Basketball is one of the only sports where a foul/penalty can routinely help you.

I actually said that I used to pay that, and would be willing to pay double for that specific service, but that service no longer exists. Take that, throw in the other major European leagues and all of the international competitions and friendlies commercial free, and that would be worth around $100/month to me. I just don't watch anything else "live". And frequently not even football, so I can just skip halftime. Football is set up beautifully for a commercial-free broadcast, but the American sports certainly aren't, unless you don't watch them live, and even then you'd be skipping quite a bit. When I used to watch hand-egg, I'd wait until the game was almost over to start it, then watch a play, hit 30-second skip (which coincided nicely with the beginning of the next play), skip any actual commercials, then repeat. Took about 20 minutes to watch a 3 hour game.

Millions of people pay more than $100 per month to watch all of that crap with commercials .

Fan(atic)s are willing to go to absurd lengths for their personal fix.

Bundling is the cause of cable TV prices increasing. End bundling and pay what you want.

I'm all for ending subsidies to billionaires for arenas, and I will continue to vote against any politician who votes for them.

Who claimed that? They are increasing, as I pointed out, above. Additional commercials during the content is hardly "weaning itself from commercials".

I know plenty of people who claim that ads don't bother them, and the increase in ads on TV seems to indicate that many more aren't bothered by them. I have disposable income and my time is valuable, so I would gladly pay to skip ads. Maybe if you're broke and/or don't care at all about your time, ads aren't so bad.

Why would you be willing to pay that much to watch a bunch of people/animals/real housewives running around talking to/mating with/assaulting each other? How can that be so entertaining you'd pay $100/month? I understand how TV dramas/wildlife programs/"reality" shows can be fun for the actors/animals/just awful human beings, I just don't get people paying money to watch others act in/be oblivious to/shamelessly mug for the camera in them.

To each his own?

I don't think that they could make more money by dropping ads because many many people just aren't bothered by ads, and that drives me almost as crazy as having to sit through ads. And everything in the U.S. has more ads now. As an example, I've been watching football (the real football, not American hand-egg) for about five years, in particular English football. For about three seasons, I paid a subscription fee of $150/year so that I could watch every Premier League game online commercial-free for up to one week after the game aired. This also included many FA Cup matches and some matches from other leagues and even sports like rugby. I would have gladly paid double for this kind of service. So when the EPL was rebid and NBC won the American rights, I was devastated because I knew what was coming, and I wasn't wrong. Now I can watch all matches online (for free if I have NBCSN on cable), but online there is a banner that sits above the viewing area for the game that is constant. And whether or not I watch online, there are ads every 4-5 minutes in the form of a video that plays in the upper left where the score is, and then the static logo of that advertiser displays until the next ad runs. And of course there are always things like "The Ben and Jerry's Stoppage Time." In addition, NBC only has the rights to the Premier League, so I can't watch any other competition on that channel. International football is now spread across at least five networks (NBC, Fox, ESPN, GolTV, BeIn), three of which are not included in basic cable, and all of them maximize ads (but not up to the standards of MLS on Fox, who actually shrinks the game area by about 40% every few minutes to show an ad along the entire right-side and lower-section of the screen - so I just never watch an MLS game on that network). I truly don't get why people pay for this crap. (I don't pay for cable.) I actually have a couple of modified pieces of black felt that I use to cover the top score/ad area and the bottom ticker, both of which are equally annoying. I would gladly pay around $100/month or probably even more if I could watch most matches around the world commercial free online, but I don't see that happening, ever. It seems like we're going towards more ads in the U.S., not fewer.

Exactly. If the government guaranteed all mortgages, house prices would skyrocket, too. College would be much cheaper if we ended the guarantee on student loans. Banks would then likely A) Test you to make sure you are likely to graduate college (much like a credit/employment check), and B) Make sure that you get a degree in a field that will likely pay enough for you to be able to repay the loan (much like asking for collateral).

Thank you for trying to counter a point that I wasn't trying to make, so that I could counter your point. 25M is 4M more than Sunday Night Football, the #1 show in all of prime time, averaged for the season. The game I referenced was in the group stage - not even an elimination game. If the US had reached the World Cup final, the numbers would have been much closer to Super Bowl numbers. And 114M is about a third of the US population, so the US at large doesn't give a shit about that, either.