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?

No, if you have a company machine and I am the company owner, it is my responsibility to make sure it is a properly working tool for you be as productive as you can be. You're a number, not a person and we can't trust you to do what you're supposed to do. I mean, your net logs for your Internet access are perfect examples of that.

That's all well and good and is honestly more complex than you are making it out to be. Also, you're missing the backend and how you're going to manage all of that overhead in network switching and security alone. I'm glad you think you have it all figured out but in reality, your ideas will not work as cheaply and easily as you think.

Why? People. Your solution needs users with more than a basic knowledge of computers. In the real world businesses, most lack even a basic knowledge of computers. IT's purpose is so that the profit centers can concentrate on being productive and profitable and not worry about the maintenance of their machine. That's the whole purpose of IT. Create an environment that is stable, fast, easy to use and seamlessly integrated. Once I start having to rely on all you code monkeys to keep your machines updated properly and not install stuff like LimeWire on your company issued laptop, that's when my security posture becomes compromised and is no longer effective.

See, it's got nothing to do with what you think you can and can't do. It has everything to do with my SLAs (Service Level Agreements) and what I promise to deliver in the way of enterprise architecture and infrastructure. If I am not the one maintaining your system for you and I leave it up to you then I spend an inordinate amount of time fixing what you screwed up. That costs me time and makes other proactive projects suffer which costs money in the long run. Both ideas are unsat to any manager looking to reduce costs and improve efficiency. What's worse is that god forbid a user actually owns up to causing the problems they have with performance due to spyware and other fun stuff rather than complain to their managerial unit and blame me for not maintaining my promised level of service. So, since you can't be trusted and I'm not paid to babysit your net surfing habits and program installations, it's more cost effective for me to issue you company owned machines and implement company wide security solutions and usage policies.

Also, you should stop kidding yourself. Whether you like Windows or not, it is still the modern standard in computing environments for the majority of commercial enterprises. Linux is a lame duck for anything but clustered computing and even the big name/house UNIX versions are losing ground as well. Apple is, for all intents and purposes, a relative non-player due to products focus more on the consumer level where a computer is a toy or an appliance more than a tool.

Currently, there is no simple way to implement your ideas in Windows and many companies are reluctant to invest capital in the Windows infrastructure they have than to even think about the cost involved in moving from a distributed infrastructure to thee more individual, non-standard node based model you're suggesting. It might work for a small company with very few employees but once you get past the "small enterprise" levels of employees and systems, it's a logistical nightmare full of security holes.

Lastly, whether I'm being a jerk in your eyes or not, this is reality and unless you can give a long-term picture with a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis beyond just the computing systems, no one in the corporate world is going to entertain your idea. That's just how it is and unfortunately, it's not going to change any time soon because it would require a massive corporate culture shift. When you're dealing with profits, not necessarily money but profits, people are very reluctant to rock the boat and risk that profit on a what if whey know the have now is a quantifiable value.

Yep, the failure of "Arrested Development" was directly attributed to the fan base never knowing when it would be on.

"Family Guy" was, however, just flat out canceled because FOX had no idea that's massive fan base was not represented by Nielsen ratings. Hence the letter writing campaign that got it put back on the air and prompted the syndication of the show on 4 separate networks.

I wonder when FOX will figure out that you can't put everything in a nice little box and have it accurately explain the population overall.

You don't read Slashdot much, do you?

That's the prevailing attitude here.

For a visual representation of it, think "Comic Book Guy" from "The Simpsons". Statements may be accurate but the superiority complex is a deal killer when trying to take those accurate statements seriously.

That's the biggest reason for the move. American Idol airs in Bones' time slot now and Bones is in Fringe's typical time slot on Thursdays. Bones gets better ratings because of the perpetual parade of buxom wenches in tight clothing being flashed across the screen. Apparently the womenfolk find that David Boreanaz fellow quite fetching as well.

I don't imagine John Noble (Walter Bishop) has the same draw with the ladies.

Besides, Fringe requires you to pay attention. You don't necessarily have to think about it because if you're patient enough, they explain it all in the course of the show. But that patience thing is a deal killer for most of the slack-jawed, mouth-breathers out there who dismiss anything even remotely based in higher subjects like math and science as boring. It's pathetic that people would rather watch garbage like "American Idol", "Real Housewives of..." or "Jersey Shore" than anything that requires you to flex some gray matter. It is, however, some high level subject matter and most superficial people I know have dismissed it without giving it any inkling of a chance as "nerd entertainment" and they can't follow it because it's all "sciency and stuff". Is that even a word?

It's a shame too because it honestly is good TV. It stands up as a drama as well as a Sci-Fi show. My girlfriend didn't give it a chance until Season 2 when I was not wanting to do anything on Thursdays so I could watch Fringe and the re-broadcast of another spectacular show, "Breaking Bad". Now she's hooked on both and is usually occupying the seat next to me on the couch, riveted to the TV for the hour or two for each show.

Thank God for the DVR though! It already records every new episode for me so even if I have to miss it, I'm still gonna get to see it! I've been eagerly awaiting the rest of the current season. If FOX cancels it like the morons they are, I think there should be another letter writing campaign on the level of the "Family Guy" debacle several years ago.

...not because it's just a bad idea to provide cutting edge equipment to do the job. It's a bad idea because of one thing...legal liability.

Right now, companies all over the world, are battling governments, civil rights unions, employee unions, activist organizations and so one over the idea of personal privacy. Personal privacy doesn't really exist but we like to make up the illusion that it does by saying something is mine and you can't have it or tell me what to do with it. It's mine, mine, mine, all mine, keep your grubby hands off it you evil, faceless corporation!

That's all well and good until it comes time to clean up a mess like a data spill or a hostile attack on a system. See, corporations have a much easier time enforcing computing policies when they provide the equipment, network and other computing equipment for their employees. When they own the equipment, there is no longer a question of "civil rights" because of the idea of private property. Just like you, at home, reserve the right to limit public access to your home and all the things you have in and around it in any way you see fit, so do the corporations. Democracy stops at the front door in the interests of the more bureaucratic but often more efficient hierarchy of a private, tiered dictatorship.

When the company owns the equipment, if they allow you any level of personal use or personal privacy beyond the minimal amounts that most labor laws require, it's by courtesy only. They can tell you what you can and can't do with their private equipment. That extends to whatever security, anti-virus, anti-malware and proxy level they choose to instantiate in their systems to protect company assets and property. Sure you can lobby against it and whine like a petulant child but in reality, you don't have much of a foot to stand on.

If you allow workers to use their own machines, you open a gigantic security hole as well a massive logistical problem in maintaining and securing your networks and shared resources. How do you ensure that users are keeping their systems up to date with patches and updates? How do you ensure they are using a compatible version of an OS? How do you even ensure they are using a LEGAL copy and not a pirated version rife with back doors and other little nasties? What do you do about limiting network access? You could use a VPN system with something like RSA's SecureID system but then you are talking massive amounts of system overhead with poor network performance.

There is a host of problems associated with the idea that I could list for hours. Those are all technical. They do not even address the human factor. Even as it is now, when one employee gets a system upgrade while another languishes away in obsolete-system-land, it starts petulant in-fighting and envious behavior until the other employees are satiated. That only lasts until the next round of upgrades. What happens when Joe is still stuck with, say, a Dell C600 'cause that's all he can afford after paying Little Joey's college tuition and Ned comes in with a brand new MacBook Air? The jealousy will still be there. It will probably foster dissent about Ned's level of compensation vs. his perceived contribution as well. That bring a whole new mess of problems for HR. You're no longer managing people as much as you are babysitting them.

Maybe there is a bottom line benefit to the idea. However, people have an amazing affect on a bottom line in ways that most management seems to have an inability to comprehend. I'll leave it all at that because I could easily go on for pages about this. Especially since I'm one of those system security weenies that would have to deal with the aftermath of implementing such an idea. The words nuclear holocaust come to mind to describe what the networks would look like afterwords.

Kind of glad I didn't. I know a bunch of people who will be out of work now.

Why? The systems did not drain the battery and even if they did, I had jumper cables. Remember? It was in the story and is apparently a point of contention.

It's got nothing to do with what the wire can handle. A constant draw generates heat which builds in the cables. They get heat soak and as temps go up, so does resistance which generates more heat. That heat soak becomes a problem since copper's melting point is much higher than the rubber insulation surrounding it. If the rubber insulation melts, it can not only catch fire but it exposes the live cables with high current running through them to shorting out. A 90 amp short makes for an impressive and very dangerous show.

Yeah, I was a diesel mechanic too. Whoop-tee-do. You're a bit off on the average draw of a 12v system there, too. If the starter was pulling that much power, most fuses and fusible links for the starting systems would blow at those current draws. Ratings on starter motors are for peak draw, not average draw. The only times you will hit peak draw is when you have a problem with your engine that is keeping it from turning over easily.

Jumper cables are not for "sharing juice". They "link" two batteries so that the charging system from the running car can charge the battery of the non-running car enough to start the non-running car. That draw is no where near any peak draw of a starting system. If you are using your jumper cables to actually start the other car you are running several risks. Those include compromising your jumper cables, blowing up one or more batteries and damaging the charging system and other electrical systems of the car providing the jump. If you have been doing it that way then you've been doing it wrong.

Again, I will restate, condescending or not, jumper cables are not meant for constant draws of 90 amps like what I was dealing with. Heat soak becomes a problem and the insulation can become compromised.

*SIGH*

Jumper cables are designed for short bursts of high draw. "High draw" being around 30-40 amps. Most starter motors in cars draw between 30 and 60 amps max, some diesels will draw up to 120 amps.

However, they are not designed for a constant draw of 30-60 amps. The cables will get hot from just trying to jumpstart a car. Having a rack with a server, a disk array, a network switch and a backup appliance draws a considerable amount of power. Even if each of them were all running at the typical 15 amp draw like you see from a 120V circuit, that's still 60 amps of draw (reality was more like 90 amps and 15A on 120VAC doesn't really equate to 15A on 12VDC). Twice as much as what a standard starter motor draws on jumper cables. Add to that the fact that it's a constant draw over a half hour or so and the thermal properties of jumper cable insulation becomes a factor. If you had more than a passing knowledge of automotive charging and starting systems, you'd know that.

The fan was already there and running to move air across the ailing UPS. Obviously in place to handle the heat problem caused by the failed fan. Whether the cables and battery getting hot would have been an issue or not wasn't a concern because the fan was moving air and dissipating heat. Even just the calming effect that a perceived reduction in risk due to the operation of the fan on the cables and battery does wonders for performance of the tech trying to fix the problem quickly.

A box fan, whether it's effective or not, is a small cost of insurance to eliminate a condition that is easily avoidable. Even if you are flying by the seat of your pants and operating on a UPS system with unregulated power coursing through the output rails. Why that is a point of contention, I'm not sure, but in true Slashdot commenter fashion, you've managed to nitpick an insignificant part of a story with incomplete information just to discredit and insult a poster over something of no consequence to you. Good job!

Slashdot takes the "fun" out of dysfunctional.