...to "How many times can Slashdotters make the same Al Gore joke in a single article comments section? Click below to find out!"
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Is there more?
I'll forward that to Lousyberg and the other chuckle heads on Capitol Hill from my state.
First off, the "author" (used loosely) unfairly lumps the ENTIRE population into the category of gullible schlubs lapping up the misinformation spread by Wikipedia and Google. He assumes (which is par for the course for RIAA and MPAA) that the consuming public is completely made up of blithering idiots and thundering morons and that none of us are capable of understanding any piece of legislation that isn't presented to us in a manner that we "can understand". That destroys any credibility to his statements.
So I'm going to largely ignore what was said in the article because he largely ignored that I leaned about SOPA when the legislation first came about and read up on it for the length of time it was being deliberated in Congress. PIPA as well. Wikipedia only made it stupidly easy to contact my representatives...which I had already emailed about 9 times each concerning SOPA and PIPA prior to the day of protest.
I'm all for protecting intellectual property. But there are serious concerns with those bills that money-grubbing windbags like my senator, Frank Lousyberg, don't see. SOPA and PIPA are both bills intended to prevent people OUTSIDE the U.S. from stealing U.S. property. Great! I love it! But, explain to me HOW a U.S. law will apply to a jurisdiction outside of it's reach like, I dunno, Russia? China maybe? How are you going to punish Oleg in Moscow for a crime against the U.S. using U.S. based legislation without Russian buy in? Simple, you're not. The legislation will only serve to watch and punish U.S. citizens, the ones they say it's going to "protect".
SOPA and PIPA give FAR too much control to non-law enforcement bodies like the RIAA and MPAA by allowing them to get websites and even domains shutdown with "evidence" that amounts to "Hey, that looks like my words "the" and "and" on that webpage! I'd better tell a judge and get them shut down so I can investigate further!" (yes, I know it's exaggeration but it's used to show the absurdity) Once you prove that the ass trumpet that went to court and got the order is wrong, you can get your site turned back on and BAU it all day long. BUT! You have to prove your innocence first.
Let me restate that. You have to PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE FIRST.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty, in a court of law, by a jury of your peers? When did the RIAA become a law enforcement body with judicial responsibilities and furthermore, my peer? In most court rooms, someone with an invested financial stake is tossed off the jury or even reassigned because of a POTENTIAL conflict of interest. Not even an actual conflict, just the potential to have one.
I for one am not happy about any of that. I think the legislation is self-serving and far too open for interpretation. I don't even care about what Google and Wikipedia were on about. I don't care if they were spread "misinformation" or not. What I care about is some windbag, crybaby in L.A. putting out BS articles like this because legislation serving his personal agenda was shutdown by a government for the people and by the people because THOSE people think it sucks.
BTW Mr. Sherman, your profits and sales are down since 1999 because you make a shit product. Nobody wants to pay for your over-priced, overly produced, auto-tuned schlock. Piracy isn't destroying your business, your customers are. If my company lost 50% of it's market share over the last 12 years we'd be out of business...mainly because we don't have half of Congress in our back pocket to prop up our sucktastic business model and mediocre product line. I guess it's easier to point the finger away than to look at your sniveling, self-serving mug in the mirror, huh? So, tell me, what happens when you do actually get to stop piracy (good luck) and you're still hemorrhaging money and market? Who are you going to blame then? Or will we all still be stupid and not know a good thing when we are told to like it?
Thanks for one, taking a statement and spinning it in a way that totally contradicts what can reasonably be assumed. It's actually a fallacy. But hey, if you want be Captain Obvious, have fun with that. And two, thanks for reiterating what I already stated that your privacy and security are non-existent, especially in the face of someone willing to expend untold amounts of time, effort and money to get it.
Oh and yes, the person willing to forgo any thought to resources in order to get to your personal information is more dangerous than some dude stealing credit card numbers. The person wanting your financial info just wants to rob you blind, couldn't really care less about your feelings or reputation and such. The person looking to get all your info at any cost is trying to destroy you. That's more dangerous. Unless you like some dude from the Ukraine parading around as you?
By that logic, my ISP, my cellphone and land line phone companies, the Social Security Administration, my health insurance company, my doctors, my tax accountant, my employer and even the executor of my will are Man in the Middle attackers too.
Man, I feel safer already!
BTW, there are two misnomers in the world today. Security and privacy.
Privacy doesn't exist. If someone wants to know all about you, they can. The reason for that is because of security.
That doesn't exist either. Security is nothing more than a series of pitfalls, booby traps and firewalls put between the outside world and whatever you want to keep "safe". The idea there is to make the time, effort and resources needed to get to your stuff to be greater than whatever it is you want to keep safe. The second you think you are "safe and secure" is the second you will be down for the count on something as simple as a DDoS attack.
The people who want to get your stuff just because they can have no concern for the amount of time, money and effort needed to get your stuff. There is no dollar value you can assign to principle. THOSE people are the dangerous ones because they are doing something they BELIEVE in. Spammers and others who are selling your info for profit, the only thing they believe in is a paycheck and they will go for the easiest paycheck they can.
For a case study on what I'm talking about, I submit Anonymous.
Those dudes and dudettes are both the bane and the hero of an IT security person's existence. People like Anonymous not only give security people headaches at work but they keep them employed too.
...when someone comes up with a Smelloscope.
Being an admin, multiple screens can help out a great deal. Especially if I'm on with tech support for some company, have a WebEx open and I don't need them seeing other stuff. I can share per screen and if I need them to see something, I move it from one screen to the other instead of working with sharing tools that don't always work out. It also comes in handy when I need to, say, RDP to a server and I have to follow a procedure to configure something. I can have a text file open on the screen next to the RDP session instead of jumping in and out of the RDP window or having to waste a tree and print out the procedure..
As far as developers though, the only ones I have ever seen use multiple monitors were web and/or application developers. One screen is the development window, the other screen is a remote desktop or VM for testing. I knew one guy who had 3 screens but I think it was more of an ego boost than anything. He only ever had his WoW guild page up and was F5'ing the forum and chat room instead of working on his other two monitors.
There is so much awesomeness and win in that story that I'm going to go to Doylestown, PA and protest her suspension and demand her immediate promotion to Supernintendo Chalmers!
Do not mistake simplification of the subject for brevity's sake as an admission of inaccuracy of the story.
I gleaned over large parts that were unnecessary to the overall point but felt it was important to the illustration of the idea that FOX royally screwed the pooch on the cancellation of Family Guy since they benefited (read: profited) so greatly from it.
Then again, this is Slashdot and the prevailing attitude of the "betterthanthouart commentariat" is to latch on to an inconsequential factoid that interests no one in reality and beat it until it is long past dead in some lame effort to prove some level of equally inconsequential superiority on the subject matter.
Can't really argue with that. He has a laundry list of credits for production, directing, acting, education and and directorship in the cinema and stage worlds. He's a credit to Australia and it's contribution to the cultural arts.
He also made contributions to the human race by producing such vision as his daughters actress/model Samantha Noble and model Jessica Noble!
Nielsen wasn't irrelevant when Family Guy was canceled the first time. That was the basis for my reference and it is a valid reference even if you want to dismiss it. I did not make reference to Nielsen ratings for any other show.
I know Comcrap mines customer data. You can see it in what programming is aired in what markets. That's why when you log in to their site to view TV listings, you have to put your region in to get the correct programming schedule.
FOX still doesn't look outside of the box though. Most major networks don't. They go for what they are going to be able to sell advertising. Unfortunately, people who would be in to shows like Fringe are not enough of a market segment to warrant the advertising costs for the companies who would be interested in advertising to Fringe's viewer base.
You've seen one or two episodes (Nimoy was in like 4 in total, maybe 6? But his character has been discussed since S1, Ep1) and you're going to dismiss the entire show on the lack of the demonstration scientific and mathematical content on that? OK, fine, dismiss all the theory discussed and presented just because nobody is writing numbers and figures on a chalk board.
I'm not even going to bother to argue. You're obviously completely convinced that you're opinion is the only one to have and I really don't want to expend the effort in trying to get you to just see another side without even wanting to convince you. It must suck being you surrounded by so many other inferior beings, huh?
FOX has Glee on Tuesdays, American Idol on Wednesdays and House on Mondays. All are hit shows that bring big ratings. They aren't moving anything out of the way for Fringe on those days.
If there wasn't anything special on those days, I'd be more inclined to agree with you but Friday is the only weekday that has nothing else on the docket that would detract from the Fringe viewership or lead viewers of those other garbage shows to turn away from FOX when something with that "sciency stuff" came on. They want to retain viewers for the entire primetime segment and Fringe following Glee wouldn't do that. Glee following Fringe wouldn't do that either.
If they moved Fringe to a Saturday night then I'd say it's on the chopping block for sure. But when Fringe debuted, it was on Sundays which was where 24 started as well and you want to talk about unwatchable science shows, that was a doozy! If anything, throw out American Dad and The Cleveland Show and put Fringe on Sundays.
I'd be willing to give you the concession in this matter if I actually cared about the science value of it all.
I like Fringe because even though most of the "science community" feels that it's bogus, it's written with a story and plot deeper than the normal schlock on TV.
I'm not a fan of Bones because I think it relies more on shock factor and sex appeal than anything science based. Yeah, maybe they follow the typical TV conventions of what the majority of the population thinks are typical crime scene investigation techniques but it's really not based in reality for a show that's supposed to be based in some level of reality.
A better example of what I'm talking about are medical dramas. House is not real no matter how you cut it. The medical science behind it is quite real and methodically researched for accuracy but the whole idea behind it is baloney. It is, however, an interesting show that is compelling because of the plot and character interactions and development. The medical science is merely the backdrop. It provides and environment that helps describe the characters motivations and interactions. It's part of the plot device. The show is completely fictional but like Tom Clancy novels, uses real world science and contemporary situations to add a level of believability to the story which enhances the character development.
Fringe as well uses the science, which isn't wrong, just theoretical and the majority is unproven. Yeah, the premise of multiple universes is a bit out there but there is scientific evidence showing the possibility of multiple dimensions. That's unproven though. If you look at the hard science then Fringe looks completely bogus. However, like most science fiction, if you look at it as something like an Issac Asminov story, it's a "what if" kind of deal. What if there were these alternate dimensions with parallel universes? What would happen? What would it be like?
Many people have already stated that they have to suspend their belief in reality for the majority of the show. Well, yeah, so do I, duh. That doesn't make the show bogus. It's fantasy. Even Star Trek uses hard science to try and explain how some of the more "out there" premises of the show are possible. That doesn't mean the show is bogus. Many people were fine with the descritions of wormholes in Star Trek. It's the same decscription in Fringe that was accepted in Star Trek but is now unacceptable in Fringe and makes it unwatchable?
Get real. Give it a break, use your imagination and just follow the story. That's all it is. That's all any television programming or movie is. Fringe isn't a documentary. It's story time with Uncle J.J. Treat it as such and you're less likely to be disappointed. After all, it's TV. It's entertainment, not a life changing event.
Beyond that, if there is any redeeming value to this kind of TV, it will prompt people who normally wouldn't think twice about it to seek answers. It can pique interest in theoretical sciences and drives people to see what's really out there and if it's really possible. That factor alone makes it far more valuable IMO than any of that reality stuff, even things like Dirty Jobs or Mythbusters.
No, really, it doesn't because there are many other ways for people to be envious of co-workers.
Then again, that's one issue addressed albeit rather incompletely. What about the several other issues I posed as well as the myriad of other issue that have gone unmentioned but are still equally relevant?