I'm pretty sure that the reason that nobody on Slashdot agrees with you has more than a little to do with the fact that you're a "Married with Children" fan.

Admittedly, "The Beast with a Thousand Backs" or whatever it was called did more to creep me out than to amuse me. That being said, as a literary critic I can't agree with the assertion that a single second of any episode of "Family Guy" could be classified as "meh." For thousands of years comedy has not developed past Aristophanes -- indeed, fewer than a hundred years ago the great cultural historian Edith Hamilton compared the popular entertainment of the previous generation to his oeuvre. The cutaway scenes in Family Guy represent the first departure from classical comedy I've ever been aware of. In my (professional) estimation Seth McFarlane is the single most important writer in the English language since the time Shakespeare, Coleridge, and Blake.

So there's that.

I wish I'd been there the day in debate class where they taught me how to make the argument that my opponent's position was "soul deadening," on the authority, no less, of "every mature, moral person." It seems like a pretty powerful argument, after all: anyone who would even attempt to dispute your position is then either immature or immoral, and in either case universally despised, which has to put a serious dent in his standing to argue his point with the likes of an ethical powerhouse of your eminence.

Indeed, your argument is so powerful that it shows us that Voltaire, previously thought to be one of the great ethical minds, is in fact a blubbering degenerate -- after all, his resolve to fight for free expression even for distasteful or outrageous opinions is by your argument tantamount to directly acting out the furthest slippery-slope consequences of those expressions.

Another thing I've learned from you just now is that abstract arguments do not apply to concrete situations. For instance, I may believe in freedom of religion in the abstract, but when a Muslim moves in next door all bets are off -- after all, there is now the concrete threat of my family being the victim of a "holy war," which trumps my ideals (and for that matter statistics) and tells me that I need to take action.

Truth be told, you're (perhaps unintentionally) basing your ethics around what makes you feel outraged or uncomfortable, rather than on ideals or on lucid consideration of how cause leads to effect. Forget the twentysomething videogame addicts -- even the core audience for Hannah Montana can tell you that right and wrong are universal and that you don't get to make exceptions based on your personal likes and dislikes.

If these exact videos were coming from an open-source python program and there was a link to sourceforge in the article, you'd be calling it cool. If it were a new feature in GarageBand and they'd announced it at MacWorld, it would have been *the* highlight of the conference. What this program does is explore the harmonies that are compatible with a melody, and you can see from the "Roxanne" video that it does a really, really good job of it. Maybe plugging it directly into a Casio-style accompaniment generator is not exactly the best thing to do with it, but this is definitely a *very* cool little program in its own right.

Basically what's being said here is that the academic publication system is vulnerable to the sorts of SEO attacks that briefly caused search engines to be befuddled by sites full of interlinked pages full of nonsense text and viagra ads. The academic publication system just moves a little slower, so it's going to take them a little longer to update things.