Slashdot Mirror


A Law Show Set 25 Years from Now

aaron240 writes "CBS will be airing a pilot of a new show called 'Century City' tonight, Tuesday, March 16th. CNN has the story. The executive producer, Ed Zuckerman, had this to say about the future state of the law in America: 'Our future is a positive future. We assume that things are basically going to get better, progress will continue,' Zuckerman says. 'There will be problems -- new inventions, new technologies will bring with them difficulties -- but it's a bright future.' He also makes it clear that 'This is not a 'Blade Runner''. Is there any chance it will offer a decent treatment of the issues Open Source advocates worry about today? If he's so positive, could he possibly know anything about software patents to say nothing of SCO?"

318 of 413 comments (clear)

  1. Not ANOTHER law show? by andyrut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This might turn out to be a great show. But really, there's already a glut of legal shows on television (The Practice, Judging Amy, JAG, etc.), and using a gimmick like setting it in the future won't attract me to it.

    Is there any chance it will offer a decent treatment of the issues Open Source advocates worry about today? If he's so positive, could he possibly know anything about software patents to say nothing of SCO?

    Don't expect it to even come close to issues important to us nerds.

    There's just something lacking in a show that focuses on such riveting legal issues as "should a player with a super-accurate bionic eye be allowed to play professional baseball?" Really, this is an actual plot line that will be in "Century City."

    1. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by DonnieD701 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Won't this just end up like every other show about lawyers? Sex, Lies, and more sex..

      --
      A witty saying proves nothing. Voltaire (1694-1778)
    2. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a logical extension of current issues like "Should players be allowed to chemically enhance their bodies?"

      You may not be interested in sports, but I am, and I'd be curious to see how they argue it, pro and con.

      Too bad I don't have a TV anymore.

    3. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by somethinghollow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to mention that a show about OSS would be more boring to the general public than any given APT show (note: I said GENERAL public, which might not be YOU). OSS just isn't good entertainment unless 1) it's real and 2) you're a geek. Hell, I wouldn't watch it. Speculating about the future of OSS would be pointless. Things that adhere to evolution via demands (as OSS projects do) don't always stick to a plan.

    4. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by Zordak · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, I'm betting it gets cancelled before it has a chance to get that far. I've seen the previews, and for the most part, it just looks silly and contrived. Sort of like "The Practice" spent a steamy night in a seedy motel with "Minority Report," and this was the unhappy result.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    5. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by Rosyna · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, it is obvious that I won't be watching it tonight. A new episode of Scrubs is on at the same time that deals with causality and the chaos theory. A subject much more interesting to me.

    6. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      In a country ruled by lawyers, does this really surprise you?

    7. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let's face it, Minority Report had some great vision-of-future-tech bits with an absolutely lame story. Maybe there is something interesting in the daily civil lawsuit during that time frame...

    8. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      There's just something lacking in a show that focuses on such riveting legal issues as "should a player with a super-accurate bionic eye be allowed to play professional baseball?"

      Yet another case ripped from the headlines

      --
      What?
    9. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by GAVollink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's what you get when you take a ~45 page Philip K. Dick short story and try to turn it into a feature film. Same problem that you have with 'Paycheck', way to much filler for the producer to over-produce.

    10. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by corbettw · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, it is obvious that I won't be watching it tonight. A new episode of Scrubs is on at the same time that deals with causality and the chaos theory. A subject much more interesting to me.

      Scrubs has plots? I thought it was just a vehicle for watching Sarah Chalke occasionally flash her bra. At least, that's why I watch it.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    11. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Funny, I thought the oppisite.

      The first time I saw it I was so bothered by the "futuristic atmosphere" I almost left the theatre (I have never actually left a movie). I watched it on HBO later and actually got kind of into it. And it wasn't because I was too stupid to understand it or anything. It was the damn 3-d interfacing. The imposible to see anything on clear displays, and the highway system in general that bothered me.

      Other stupid little things too (like how can his eyes still be authorized to the top secret area when he is most wanted). But I can get over the minor (and even major) nits, the vision of the future as a whole was incredibly frustrating though.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    12. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Remove the last S from OSS. Sure, whether I can construct my own OS or web browser in the future is completely boring. But start applying Open Source to hardware--can I construct my own robot? My own von Neuman machine robot? My own nanomachines? Can I genetically engineer my own pets? Can I synthesize my own medicine? My own drugs? Really, making it a legal drama kind of presupposes an answer to all of these questions: "only if the government says you can." Which is why Century City sounds boring to me--by dissing "Blade Runner", it cuts itself off from a vast world if illicit technology.

    13. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1, Funny
      Won't this just end up like every other show about lawyers? Sex, Lies, and more sex..
      There will be no videotapes in 2029???
    14. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Better be ruled by lawyers than by police.

    15. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by retendo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Plus do we really want SCO to be an issue 25 years from now?


      I'm hoping they go away a lot sooner than that.....

    16. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by slasher999 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I like the idea of a show set in the near future. It's not far enough in the future to allow for absurd plot lines, but it's far enough to have that "wow, cool" effect - maybe. I agree that there are too many law shows now. We keep stuff like The Practice around, we have two CSI's, three Law and Order's, and a merger of JAG and CSI called NCIS or something like that, and don't forget The Shield and The Wire, or COPS, America's Most Wanted, etc, etc, etc, yet they cancel good shows like The Agency. Go figure. Maybe there will be something original here though. I hope!

    17. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Look at Law and Order. On for years, and they still stay away from the private lives of the characters, and when the actors inevitably complain they're told to go stuff themselves.

    18. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by dzelenka · · Score: 1

      The first batch of SCO officers will just be getting out of jail at this point in time.

      --
      Bah!
    19. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by Txiasaeia · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that's exactly true, at least for Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. There have been several references to past history (Eliot's a Catholic with four children, Munsch is divorced, Olivia was an orphan), and IMHO SVU is the most effective and interesting show of all three iterations.

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    20. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by kettch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It'll probably be like some of the other shows that I started to watch. Whether they are lawyer shows, medical shows, or whatever. They start out dealing with interesting topics/situations. However, at some point the characters start having a personal life. They start banging other characters. Then they start banging clients. Then the show starts bringing in a new outrageous guest star every week. Then they start swapping new characters in every month.
      Another thing they do is to do "ripped from the headlines" plots. And since it takes months for a show to go through production and actually make it to TV, I never remember what the hell they are talking about.

      I hate TV

      --
      Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
    21. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by panaceaa · · Score: 1
      Except that it's not a criminal justice issue, it's an issue for sports leagues to decide. In the present, Barry Bonds could be forced not to play if he were caught using steroids, but that's completely seperate from any criminal charges that he could face. (Actually I think players have to test positive for steroid use 5 consecutive times to be punished by the league, with the tests announced quite in advance and none of the testing results made public.)

      So while it might be interesting to hear the perspectives of both sides, doing it on a lawyer show would probably be quite unrealistic. I doubt it would involve the real-world issues such as negotiating with the sports league or the side issue of possessing steroids without a prescription. And even if they did do a show about criminal charges for steroid possession, those charges wouldn't prevent someone from playing professional sports.

    22. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by uncoveror · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am curious. If everyone hates lawyers, why do so many people watch all the shows about them?

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    23. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by macdaddy357 · · Score: 3, Funny

      This show looks like a bunch of crap. The future isn't going to be shiny and polished like Star Trek. You want to know how law will be in the future? Two men enter. One man leaves. Bust a deal, face the wheel.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    24. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      There's just something lacking in a show that focuses on such riveting legal issues as "should a player with a super-accurate bionic eye be allowed to play professional baseball?"
      A player like that would be very good at jumping sharks - just like the TV show.
    25. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Except that it's not a criminal justice issue, it's an issue for sports leagues to decide.

      Anything involving discrimination, including against the physically disabled, is fair game for the Federal Gvt. (And if the TV show assumes a Bush victory this year and extrapolates from there, they might feature a more controlling legal system than we have today)

      Besides, the US Senate has already injected itself into baseball's discussion on performance-enhancement...

    26. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by Mac+Scientist · · Score: 3, Insightful
      There's just something lacking in a show that focuses on such riveting legal issues as "should a player with a super-accurate bionic eye be allowed to play professional baseball?"

      By taking place in the future, it might free up the writiers to deal with touchy issues of the present, without treading on someone's toes (think Murphy Brown, Dan Quail, and unwed motherhood). Looks like they already have some, but here's a few future issues that could spark some controversy:

      human cloning for disease treatment vs longevity

      computer graphic use of the dead and famous in movies and commercials

      undetectable computer doctoring of photos and recordings in news reporting

      competition in sports between normal and physiologically enhanced players

      undetectable biologically induced physical enhancement

      advanced math methods in accounting to artificially increase earnings

      Wait, I think I've seen these somewhere before...

    27. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by G-funk · · Score: 1

      Don't expect it to even come close to issues important to us nerds.

      No! A television show, produced by a media company, won't cover the issues important to us, which are mostly the violations of the public by media companies?

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    28. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      they're told to go stuff themselves.

      No, they're given one episode per season where the permanent cast is allowed to temporarily become interesting. On one single day, one cop's wife gets cancer, the other's daughter is murdered, one lawyer is tried for ethics violations, and the other is voted out of office...

    29. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by wash23 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Minority Report (the Philip K. Dick short story) is an excellent story with some absolutely lame vision-of-the-future-tech bits. I think that's the hollywood formula though; s/story/action-FX/g. Read Philip K. Dick.

    30. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by Zareste · · Score: 1

      25 years from now? Let's think for a moment. Do you honestly believe the law will IMPROVE with time? I heavily doubt this'll be worth watching because the only law the US will have 25 years from now is "Breathe the air and we'll cuff you for suspicious behavior."

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
    31. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      If everyone hates lawyers, why do so many people watch all the shows about them?

      Research.

    32. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Oh, I meant the REAL Law and Order. And I think SVU is the worst of the three.

    33. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      That's why they (used?) to be called "Night Soaps".

      I remember when I first heard that term, and I thought it was showering with the girlfriend after work. Long time ago :)

      Anyone know when that slang first became popular? I remember first hearing it back in the early 80s, about the same time of the explosion of the shows that typified what the parent poster is talking about really went propogational...

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    34. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      So she has a name? hmm, it never occurred to me. oh well.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    35. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by John+Biggabooty · · Score: 1

      It is a mid-season replacement show. It was never intended to be back in the fall. I would wager that the writer of the pilot meant it as a joke, but the dullards at CBS didn't get it, and produced the turkey. You just can't joke with humorless people, or idiots in a boardroom.

      --
      That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!
    36. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by Finuvir · · Score: 1

      Won't this just end up like every other show about lawyers? Sex, Lies, and more sex..

      There will be no videotapes in 2029???

      They were destroyed during the second coming of Christ.

      --
      Why is anything anything?
    37. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      "And I think SVU is the worst of the three."

      While I respect your opinion, and think Law & Order: Classic is the best of the 3, saying SVU is the worst is WAY off.

      Criminal Intent is too "ordinary." There's not much to distinguish CI and any other cop show. Plus, the main character guy just pisses me off. He acts WAY too snobby and superior. Sure, you out-smarted the bad guys, but you're still acting like a complete jack-off. There's a line between "Yay, you foiled the idiot crook" and "Ok, please stop putting the crook's hair on fire, he just stole a bunch of priceless cars." The main character crosses that line every time, and keeps on going. And unlike Lenny's funny comments or tough-love attitude, this guy just acts like an ass.

      SVU may put some people off because of the subject matter (pedofiles, rape, etc), but it's quite interesting. It delves into the characters lives every now and then, but only to show how their job and what they experience bleeds into their home lives. Hell, I can't see how anyone can be an SVU detective for too long without going insane, especially if you have a family.

      While to each their own, I know a lot of people that feel SVU is actually quality material.

      Perhaps saying you enjoy SVU the least is the best way to phrase it.

    38. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by wahmuk · · Score: 1
      I am curious. If everyone hates lawyers, why do so many people watch all the shows about them?

      The same reason they watch NASCAR races... just lookin' for a little blood and guts. They don't really want the lawyers to get killed or anything, but if there's a good wreck, they don't want to miss it.

      --
      You can't take the sky from me!
    39. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by certron · · Score: 1

      I think that this framework has potential, but then, maybe I don't know enough about the show. The other question is whether it will be like the Twilight Zone or Law and Order. Will each episode be its own world, or will there be some continuity between episodes (or even a story arc)? Hopefully, at least there will be consistency between them. (Or at least, as much as you can when dealing with the law...)

      The question about "only if the government says you can" doesn't work, because the government doesn't know what to think on these issues. This is where the writing of future history comes in, and where the creative scriptwriting becomes important.

      Bold assertion: This show will be like Max Headroom. Visionary, groundbreaking, and cancelled after one season.

      I like the show Monk, but I couldn't get anyone else at my house to watch it. Who knows, it could be an awesome show. Not everyone will like it.

      --

      fair.org counterpunch.com truthout.com indymedia.org salon.com
      eff.org guerrilla.net debian.org gentoo.org
    40. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I just had a sudden horrifying flash of Love Boat theme music playing as a cruise ship docks in Century City port.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    41. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by g0_p · · Score: 1

      I enjoy watching "Law and Order" just for this reason (and for Elizabeth Rohm of course :-p) . No fricking private lives - everything is about the case from the beginning to the end. And no fancy pants lab technicians who try to act cool just because they got a nose hair from the ass or whatever. And no stupid "The Practice" like cases where every episode some lawyer realizes that he is trying to protect a criminal - OMYGOD! (DUH!)

      Off late on Law and Order though, some of the one-liners seem contrived and Lennie almost always has to say something smart. Still, a new "Law and Order" episode always manages to keep my attention. They have a simple formula and they execute it very well. I remember they had one techie episode with a hacker in it and it was quite decently researched by Hollywood standards.

      LaO SVU is not very interesting since sexually related crime cases start getting nauseating after some time. The other LaO spinoff sucks bigtime. That retard of a detective cranes his neck and makes outrageous conclusions without any basis whatsoever. ("She has written the Sigma symbol in her math book many times so she is suicidal." WTF? )

    42. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by Dausha · · Score: 1

      it might free up the writiers to deal with touchy issues of the present

      I think it is a way of convincing people this is the way things will be, so that when these arguments do actually come up, public opinion has already been swayed.

      Their idea of progress and mine are not always compatable.

      --
      What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    43. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by PantsWearer · · Score: 1
      You actually can stand Law and Order? Their formula is so simple it can nearly boil down to a drinking game. I used to watch the show regularly until my wife and I started having discussion, not about the actual content of the show, but how soon in the episode we managed to correctly predict the outcome.

      I find SVU to be much more interesting. At least they manage to change their formula on a regular basis. Criminal Intent I've only watched once and found, like you, I couldn't stand the lead.

      --
      Be glad life is unfair, otherwise we'd deserve all this.
    44. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 1

      Okay, it's several days later, I actually watched the show. I did not like it. The show's plot revolved around the firm's convincing a jury that it was okay to let a man use a fertilized egg cloned from his son to save his son's life even though cloning was illegal. It didn't work for me as sci-fi, because it offers people this comfortable notion of human beings saying yes-or-no to new technologies in an organized legal manner. Technology submitting to bureaucracy--perfect for the post-dot-com era, but not entertaining to watch unless you hate nerds, and why would you watch Future Law and Order if you hate nerds? It didn't work as a law show, because it was asking a jury to decide issues of law rather than issues of fact. (Yeah, I know about Jury Nullification, but everyone on the show kept talking about how the jury would set a pro-cloning precedent, and jury nullification doesn't set precedents.) There was some cloned super-attorney who apparently plans to spend any more episodes they decide to air whining about how much it sucks to be genetically engineered with superior intelligence and strength. I find it unlikely this show will become something worth watching. If they had a Law and Order show set in the Paleolithic era, a Flintstones to this Jetsons, I that would be much more entertaining. I agree, Monk totally rules. One of the few reasons I miss cable.

    45. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by autopr0n · · Score: 1

      The first time I saw it I was so bothered by the "futuristic atmosphere" I almost left the theatre (I have never actually left a movie).

      God your touchy.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    46. Re:Not ANOTHER law show? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      God you reply to old stories.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  2. First Episode of New Law Show by Tongue+In+A+Box · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft is currently appealing the latest decision orcing them to break apart...details in the next law show set 25 years ahead of this one.

    1. Re:First Episode of New Law Show by SoSueMe · · Score: 1

      First, I was going to say:
      "I just find it disturbing that lawyers will be still around in 25 years".
      Now I find it doubly disturbing that lawyers and Micorsoft will both be around in 25 years.

    2. Re:First Episode of New Law Show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I thought that they were supposed to get rid of lawyers in 2015?

    3. Re:First Episode of New Law Show by dakryx · · Score: 1

      You honestly think a company with as much money in the bank as Microsoft will disappear in 25 years? They might not be major players anymore but they'll still be around

    4. Re:First Episode of New Law Show by rpillala · · Score: 1

      There are orcs?

      I'd actually watch a show where the the DOJ orced Microsoft to break apart.

      Ravi
      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
  3. Call me crazy, by Mike+the+Mac+Geek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But I think this will be more along the lines of family law, divorces, and criminal defense rather than copyright law, etc.

    Not too many people find copyright law and open source law rulings terribly entertaining.

    --
    -------------------------------------------------- ---- The man, the myth, the something or other.
    1. Re:Call me crazy, by millahtime · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well at the rate we are going there will be something like a 90% divorce rate, sex and drugs will be rampant, athletes will be cyborgs. I mean will there really be families as we know it?? Will marriage even be something really??? It's going to be law meets star trek meets larry flint.

    2. Re:Call me crazy, by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Not too many people find copyright law and open source law rulings terribly entertaining.

      Hey, if they get the babes from "All My Children", I'll watch. Hell, Matlock and Perry Mason have nothing on SCO and the patent/copyright soap operas currently online. This is even better than Professional Wrestling, because the outcome hasn't been fixed.(as far as I know)

      --
      What?
    3. Re:Call me crazy, by xlyz · · Score: 1

      Not too many people find copyright law and open source law rulings terribly entertaining

      are you kidding? just check how many peoples spend hours on browsing/commenting SCO vs the world soap opera

    4. Re:Call me crazy, by BitterOak · · Score: 1
      Not too many people find copyright law and open source law rulings terribly entertaining.

      Well, if they find they can't tape the show because some broadcast flag is set, they might take more of an interest.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    5. Re:Call me crazy, by cei · · Score: 1

      Actually, my friends and I developed a sci-fi noir detective movie set in 2035 based entirely around IP infringements. We worked up the stories more than 10 years ago, only to see a handful of some of our more absurd ideas actually show up in the courtrooms of today...

      --
      This sig intentionally left justified.
    6. Re:Call me crazy, by ultramk · · Score: 1

      It's going to be law meets star trek meets larry flint.

      Sounds great to me....

      m-

      --
      You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
    7. Re:Call me crazy, by dildofire · · Score: 1

      YOU'RE CRAZY!!!

      (sorry)

    8. Re:Call me crazy, by rockmanac · · Score: 1

      That's pretty f*cked up man! I'd love to read some of the plotlines if they're online!

      -A

    9. Re:Call me crazy, by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yeah.
      Every generation looks down with dread on the coming chaos.
      I'm sure your great grandparents expected the world to disintegrate when their children grew of age too.

      Seriously, it's only 25 years from now. I look back with my rose coloured glasses 25 years and I see.. <shudder> the 80's.

      And you think things are getting worse?

    10. Re:Call me crazy, by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      We may have a 50% divorce rate for people today, but what you don't hear is a lot of those folks get married again, and STAY married.

      As long as you don't make marriage into some sacred never-undoable thing, people will be able to repair their own mistakes and go on with their lives.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    11. Re:Call me crazy, by Simonetta · · Score: 1

      Actually, my friends and I developed a sci-fi noir detective movie set in 2035 based entirely around IP infringements. We worked up the stories more than 10 years ago, only to see a handful of some of our more absurd ideas actually show up in the courtrooms of today...

      That is very cool. It is the way to become an important person.

      The way to become a leader of your people is to project out (as you have done) the various possiblilities and then, develop techniques to deal with the suffering and upheavels that this absurd ideas are actually causing. When your people need help, and you can help them because you have foreseen the situation and have made plans to deal with it, then they will see you as their natural leader.

      Forget phoney elections and cardboard candidates, it's just window dressing.

    12. Re:Call me crazy, by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
      I'm sure your great grandparents expected the world to disintegrate when their children grew of age too.

      It did.

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    13. Re:Call me crazy, by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > We may have a 50% divorce rate for people today

      We don't. That statistic is a lie.

    14. Re:Call me crazy, by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Simonetta Vespucci (1454 - 1476) -- Beauty is the most subtle form of intelligence.

      Spoken like a true, stupid, snob of a bitch. Beauty takes no intelligence, subtle or not. Just luck.

    15. Re:Call me crazy, by pbox · · Score: 1

      Agreed, the other way around, however, is true.

      Intelligence is the most subtle form of beauty.

      She probably just din't remeber the sequence right...

      --
      Code poet, espresso fiend, starter upper.
  4. C'mon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "a legal drama set in the year 2030, where the lawyers find that though laws change, people remain the same."

    Does that sound like something that would discuss issues like software licenses? No, it sounds like a legal soap opera. I don't think this will outlast a season.

    1. Re:C'mon by elsilver · · Score: 1
      Does that sound like something that would discuss issues like software licenses? No, it sounds like a legal soap opera. I don't think this will outlast a season

      As much as we all hate to admit it, something that sounds like a legal soap opera has a much better chance of outlasting the season than something discussing software licences.

      E.

    2. Re:C'mon by Eskarel · · Score: 1
      No offense, but that would be a rather insane topic for any even halfway competent tv producer, even excluding the possiblity of offending someone rich and powerful.

      I'm a nerd, and I care about software licensing issues, but I care because they affect my life, not because I find them to be exciting or interesting in and of themselves. Even I don't really want to watch a full hour of people arguing the legal semantics of SCO, and I doubt most /.ers would either.

      That's not to say most of us wouldn't tune in, but that would only be because they were pandering to our interests, we would likely find the show dull and not ever watch it again.

    3. Re:C'mon by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > if the media industry continues to buy laws at the current rate, by 2030 the average consumer can't avoid noticing the issues?

      No, at this rate, by 2030 it will be ILLEGAL for consumers to notice they are being raped. Immediate death sentences if they speak any discontent with their corporate masters.

  5. Great! I know some cases they will work on! by ScottGant · · Score: 4, Funny

    They'll STILL be waiting for SCO to tell us which code is in violation.

    --

    "Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
    1. Re:Great! I know some cases they will work on! by ScottGant · · Score: 1

      This was gleened from the story topic:
      If he's so positive, could he possibly know anything about software patents to say nothing of SCO?

      Gee, looks pretty on topic to me!

      --

      "Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
  6. Show within the show by raider_red · · Score: 4, Funny

    One of the features of the show will be the premiere of the 256th Law and Order spinoff: "Law And Order: Illegal Cloning Investigation Unit".

    --
    It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    1. Re:Show within the show by AsimovBesterClarke · · Score: 1

      Come now, you couldn't even ObSimpsons:

      Law & Order: Elevator Investigation Unit

      --
      Ads are broken.
    2. Re:Show within the show by Liselle · · Score: 1

      I am still waiting for: "Law and Order: Parking Tickets".

      --
      Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
    3. Re:Show within the show by raider_red · · Score: 1

      Sorry, didn't see that episode of the Simpsons.

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    4. Re:Show within the show by deniable · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah, that's Law and Order: SUV.

    5. Re:Show within the show by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      Cop: Yeah I know it is against the law but I think that we are in the wrong here.

      DA: Look, we don't make the rules we just enforce them.

      Cop: But look how can we deny the future of such a plentiful bounty. Think of it, 10,000 young, nubile sex-crazed Natalie Portman's!

      DA: Your so right! Your honor, case dismissed!

    6. Re:Show within the show by raider_red · · Score: 2, Funny

      And that leads to the 257th spinoff: "Law and Order: Bad Beowulf Cluster, Natalie Portman, and In Soviet Russia Joke Investigation Unit"

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    7. Re:Show within the show by cr0sh · · Score: 2, Funny
      What about the ultimate L&O:

      "Law and Order: Extreme International Emergency Investigation Organization"

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    8. Re:Show within the show by MBCook · · Score: 1

      Pfft. It's all been down hill since "Elevator Inspector's Unit."

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  7. Hahhahaa by stratjakt · · Score: 1, Funny

    Is there any chance it will offer a decent treatment of the issues Open Source advocates worry about today?

    You mean like gay marriage, sodomy law reforms and legalized pot?

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:Hahhahaa by Akai · · Score: 1

      According to a review in the local paper, it's mentioned in passing that the VP of the US is Gay, so who knows....

      --
      Please send all UCE to scally@devolution.com so I can f
    2. Re:Hahhahaa by tverbeek · · Score: 1
      it's mentioned in passing that the VP of the US is Gay,

      OK, there goes my suspension of disbelief.

      I can see a woman being elected VP within 25 years, or a person of color, but I can't see the people who select the veep candidate* putting someone on the short list whose religious orthodoxy is so easily called into question.

      *Anybody else here old enough to remember when party convention delegates actually got to vote on who would be on the ticket?

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  8. neat idea, but... by JeffSh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    here's the pilot info:

    A young boy's father wants the right to use the boy's genetic embryo clone to develop a baby who could donate a portion of his liver to save him. The firm also takes on the case of a boy band that is suing its lead singer for not adhering to his contract to keep up his physical appearance.

    It doesn't look like they are going to tbe dealing with technology very much/not at all.

    moreover, it looks like the 2 issues they picked for their pilot are both things that don't require much foresight to envision, not to mention that the clone thing should happen alot sooner then 25 yrs..

    1. Re:neat idea, but... by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 1
      Well, one case is about medical technology, and the other is about medical technology.

      Looks like it is going to deal with technology.

      But yeah, those don't take a whole lot of foresight. Looks like filler to me.

    2. Re:neat idea, but... by elflet · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The core of a good science fiction story lies in the people, not the technology. Theodore Sturgeon defined it wonderfully: "A science fiction story is a story built around human beings, with a human problem and a human solution, which would not have happened at all without its scientific content."

      He's not alone in this belief -- peruse the Definitions of "Science Fiction" page and you'll see the same sentiment echoed by many successful authors (e.g. Ray Bradbury: Science fiction is really sociological studies of the future, things that the writer believes are going to happen by putting two and two together.)

      As for the rest of the show, I think they're being conservative -- it's all pretty much straight-line extrapolations, nothing really radical.

    3. Re:neat idea, but... by ddelrio · · Score: 1

      Dear GOD! I was worried about The Patriot Act, government control by big business and special interest groups, outrageous taxes, and the rise of fascism...and now I find out there are BOY BANDS in the future?!

    4. Re:neat idea, but... by pla · · Score: 1

      A young boy's father wants the right to use the boy's genetic embryo clone to develop a baby who... ...will willingly submit to his constant molestations. Michael Jackson will guest star as himself.

      Hey, whad'ya know, Google image search turned up a production still of what Mikey will look like in 25 years!

    5. Re:neat idea, but... by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful
      These are the enduring issues of technology. All the computer stuff we are going through is just a phase. Few other than historians will remeber or care. How many of you know there was a tiny part of the steam engine that had significant effects on the course of history due to it's legal ambiguity? How many of you talk about the technological wonder of a shovel or sewage pipes even though both of these had profound effects on the course of civilization. Does anyone even think of tube television as a technological marvel?

      These two issues are important. There are physical appearance clauses in contacts. As medical technology advances, those clauses will likely become more stringant. Television has dealt with these clauses, for instance in Murphy Brown. I suspect that we will also see cases where athletes are required to take certain drugs, perhaps even in middle school.

      And cloning is on everyones mind. Even if we never have a situation where a human is cloned for harvesting, the purpose of sci-fi is to create a dialogue about the issues so we have some understanding of the key points before a crisis situation develops.

      I think the coolest technological plot would be a kid wanted to get a computer implant, but the school rules forbid it. Believe it. It will happen.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    6. Re:neat idea, but... by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1
      not to mention that the clone thing should happen alot sooner then 25 yrs..

      Oh yes, and we'll have fusion power by then as well. It's set 25-30 years from now. So we're talking about as far from now as the '70s. You know, when they had men on the moon and faster than sound commercial travel. Plus, perhaps the writers actually have an idea that cloning isn't easy - you're not going to get people cloning humans until the success rate is massively higher than it is with mammals now, and we've worked out how to make clones that aren't going to prematurely age - remember, Dolly the Sheep is dead. Will it take 25 years? Wouldn't surprise me.

  9. Man science moves fast... by Godeke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I find the timeline a bit aggressive. Supposedly set in 2030, the issues at hand seem more in line for maybe 2070 or beyond. Not to belittle the advances of the last 25 years (all hail the microwave) but twenty five years ago was not that *radically* different from today.

    Perhaps the date was chosen to avoid appearing to be "too much like science fiction", but I must express my doubts that LA will have maglev monorails and all cars will be fuel cell powered by then. The death of paper seems even more unlikely, as does robotic kitchens.

    Aw, who am I kidding: 1950's scientific optimism plus the moral dilemmas of progress... I may actually watch this just to see if it is ham fisted or actually well thought out.

    --
    Sig under construction since 1998.
    1. Re:Man science moves fast... by mattkime · · Score: 4, Funny

      twenty five years ago was not that *radically* different from today.

      I beg to differ.

      There was no slashdot.

      I mean really, what did people do at work back then?

      --
      Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
    2. Re:Man science moves fast... by Matey-O · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're kidding, right? In 1988, I had _7_ casettes and 3 or 4 records...my iPod has over 200 albums worth of content and it's 25% of my (legal) collection. The surest way to get predicting the future is to TRY to predict the future. Ya think Back to the future part II was over the top when it failed to predict disposeable cellphones, electric paper, and MEMS? (all of which are really here now.)

      --
      "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
    3. Re:Man science moves fast... by WyerByter · · Score: 1

      I hate to disagree, but how many computers did you own 25 years ago? And how many of those computers where the size of a deck of cards or smaller?

      And that's just two questions near and dear to /.'s heart.

      --

      This signiture copied from somewhere.
    4. Re:Man science moves fast... by IronBlade · · Score: 5, Insightful
      but I must express my doubts that LA will have maglev monorails and all cars will be fuel cell powered by then.

      Well, if the site I link to is any indication, then the cars will have to run on something other than petroleum products.
      Would be interesting to see if the coming energy crisis will be covered at all...
      Somehow, I doubt it, as ignorance (and/or denial) is bliss...

      --
      Important info:
      http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
      http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
      http://www.peakoil.net
    5. Re:Man science moves fast... by doggo · · Score: 1

      "...but twenty five years ago was not that *radically* different from today."

      Uh huh, yeeeaahhh, right. 1979. Not that different...

      Well, if you just ignore the advances in medicine, transportation, manufacturing, astronomy, politics, things like that, there's always telecommunications.

      Small advances, like ubiquitous cell phones. PCs. PCs with 3Ghz clock speeds and 2 GBs of RAM, and who knows how many 'flops!

      Didja just miss history happening, or what?

    6. Re:Man science moves fast... by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actual work? *shudder*

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    7. Re:Man science moves fast... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      twenty five years ago was not that *radically* different from today.
      I beg to differ.
      There was no slashdot.
      I mean really, what did people do at work back then?
      Could we be on the verge of discovering the cause of the bursting of the bubble???
    8. Re:Man science moves fast... by jefe7777 · · Score: 1

      no shit! 25 years ago, i had hair, a girlfriend, a car, and my first job.

      and i was only 10 years old! ;-)

      but seriously...didn't we just celebrate the 100 year anniversary of flight?

      just 35 years ago, we went to the moon.

      c'mon. 25 years is significant.

    9. Re:Man science moves fast... by ucblockhead · · Score: 1
      Heh. Let me guess...you're a young 'un, right?

      I was a high-school freshman in 1979. Not radically different? You had to make sure you got to the bank during bankers hours if you wanted cash. If your eye-sight was bad, you could not just spend $2000 to get them fixed. If your favorite show was on at 8 pm, you had to park your ass on the couch then or wait for the rerun in a few months. If some important event was happening across the world, you basically had to wait for the evening news to find out about it. The average TV viewer had five or six channels to choose between.

      Yes, computers existed, but only a few hobbiests had them in their homes. They were the sort of thing where the common way to load a program was to type it in with a paper listing.

      If you wanted to find out what was playing at the local theater you had to go buy a newspaper. If you wanted to get directions to a location, you had to call someone who knew them up and get them.

      It was a time when digital watches were still a neat idea. Cell phones were virtually unknown.

      On the other hand, we did have a microwave.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    10. Re:Man science moves fast... by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      I beg to differ.

      There was no slashdot.

      I mean really, what did people do at work back then?

      They actually had to read their articles.

    11. Re:Man science moves fast... by kfg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From 1900 to 1925 was significant.

      From 1925 to 1950 was significant.

      From 1950 to 1975 was significant, and I remember most of it.

      From 1980 to now has been the most technologically boring period since Newton. There has been some evolution, but other than personal computers and the internet it's mostly an evolution of mature technologies. My stereo is 25 years old and there's no reason to replace it. If I took you for a ride blindfolded in a 1980 car and a new car you couldn't tell which was which.

      While in some repects, being a technologist, I have much higher tech around my house than most, I live much lower tech than the average janitor, and yet, walking through my house, a good deal of the technology, even that in my bicycle, didn't really exist 100+ years ago.

      All of it existed 25 years ago, although perhaps in nascent form, like the net, which I first bumped into circa 1976.

      The 80s sucked. They've kept on sucking and we live in their vacuum.

      KFG

    12. Re:Man science moves fast... by HardCase · · Score: 1
      I was a high school senior in 1979. There was an ATM at the bank down the road from my house if I needed cash after hours. I still can't spend $2000 to get my left eye fixed, thanks...medical science has yet to figure out how to rebuild an optic nerve. We had cable TV. 40 channels.


      I had a computer. Sure, I had to load the program by tape, but it was a computer.


      If I wanted to know what was playing at the local theater, I picked up the telephone and called. If I wanted directions to a location, I looked in the map in the phone book.


      Yeah, my digital watch (with LEDs) was a gimmick at the time and no, we didn't have cell phones (but I did have a CB radio, good buddy). We had a microwave, too.


      Lest you think that this was in the big city, let me ease your mind...this was in Boise, Idaho, population (at the time) maybe 50,000 (and the biggest city in the state).


      -h-

    13. Re:Man science moves fast... by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "but twenty five years ago was not that *radically* different from today."

      Really, you must live in Alabama or something.

      The internet? Broadband. Hybrid cars and fuel cells on the horizon. DVDs. HDTV. Satellite television. Handheld computers straight out of the original "Star Trek." Mobile phones. VoIP. The disputed proof of extraterrestrial life (see the "Mars rock" found in Antartica). Cloning. The disappointment of the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy. The success of LOTR. Tom Cruise as a sex symbol. The trasfiguration of Michael Jackson. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Metrosexuals and a Presidential candidate claiming to be one (even though he didn't know what the term meant). Outsourcing tech jobs to India.

      Politically...let's see here. The European Union and the "euro." Devolution in the U.K. - the Scottish Parliament. The World Trade Organization. The World Criminal Court. The Kyoto Climate Treaty. The collapse of the Soviet Union and world communism. The creation of the Palestinian Authority. The march of capitalism in "Communist" China. The War on Terrorism. The U.S. and the U.K. toppling a Middle East Dictatorship. The collapse of Japan as an economic threat to the U.S. Much of the world fearing the U.S.

      The Presidential Election of 2000. The Patriot Act. Sept. 11, 2001. Secret Military Tribunals. The U.S. nearing a "state of emergency"? Gay marriages. Arnold Schwarzenegger elected Governor of California!

      So in recap, there isn't much change in the past 25 years?

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    14. Re:Man science moves fast... by Godeke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok... I'm just picking this one to answer at random. Yes, I *am* saying not radically different. Now I admit that 25 years ago I was 10, so my perspective is skewed perhaps, but all the things you describe seem pretty minor.

      I remember at that point having HBO (granted, it was beamed instead of cable), mobile phones (granted, attached to cars for power) and a Vic 20 (granted with 8K of ram, of which half was already consumed). I even had digital music on my Vic 20. Most of your examples are communications improvements, but I seem to remember dialing into BBSes at 300 Baud and doing a very blocky version of what I'm doing right now. Changes in scale and speed are assumed in technology over time, but it seems like all the *major* inventions were completed in the early 1900s, and all we have done is improve them since.

      I guess I'm jaded or something. Where is the modern equivalent of the invention of flight, the first man on the moon, the explosion of household technologies of the first half of the 1900s? Yeah, my internet connection is *better* than my 300 baud modem, but it isn't a flying car (which I'm still promised, but have no expectation of ever seeing).

      This show on the other hand seems to postulate (at least via it's website) that we will perfect everything that we have in development now, 13 hours in the future. Which was fine for Max Headroom, and could make for interesting hypothetical legal issues, but seems agressive to me.

      --
      Sig under construction since 1998.
    15. Re:Man science moves fast... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >twenty five years ago was not that *radically* different from today.

      25 years ago people were changing typewriter ribbons. Music came on huge fragile disks that wore out a little each time you played one. Research was something you did in a library during hours when the library was open.

      I have a car from that era. There are five transistors in the entire car, and all of them are in the radio. My other car is an internetwork which treats the engine, the electric motor/generators, the battery pack and me as peripherals.

      If your car broke down, you had to wait for someone to stop and help. No calling AAA from your car unless you were very rich.

      Today's Google News includes headlines like "Symantec Details Net Threats", Congress is discussing how to regulate human cloning, and in a couple of hours I'll inject a genetically engineered medicine into my wife's cat.

      One old-school sf personality reminded writers that even if men were flying radium-powered spaceships, they'd still be smoking Luckys and be in the doghouse with their wives. Today they have to go outside if they smoke at all, and their wives may be flying the spaceships.

      Pick up Spider Robinson's story "The Time Traveler" for perspective on how the world can get unrecognizable in a single decade.

    16. Re:Man science moves fast... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Spent buttloads of money subscribing to industry mags (remember the old Byte, Compute, etc? Nostalgia...actual program listings and spending shitloads of money dialing up BBSs, plus being a total "social failure" because you actually *knew* something about computers....

      Oh, wait....

      Sigh. I'm not middle aged; it's just a VR sim. Someday I'll wake up and realize I'm still in my parents basement in 1981. Hey, that'd be cool - I could be wowed by Tron all over again, CGI in movies being a new concept.

      *grin*

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    17. Re:Man science moves fast... by multiplexo · · Score: 1
      I find the timeline a bit aggressive. Supposedly set in 2030, the issues at hand seem more in line for maybe 2070 or beyond. Not to belittle the advances of the last 25 years (all hail the microwave) but twenty five years ago was not that *radically* different from today.

      25 years ago is radically different than today. Let's look at some examples: 25 years ago in 1979 companies hired engineers who worked with draftsmen to produce drawings which were then sent to a machine shop for prototyping, now the draftsmen are gone, they've either retired or become engineers, their designs go directly to a machine shop for prototyping, in few years they might go straight into a three dimensional printer for prototyping.


      25 years ago in 1979 you had secretaries typing corporate memos on their IBM Selectric typewriter, if you needed copies you used carbon paper or ran the document through a Xerox machine a few times. Now you type the memo yourself and if you need hard copy you just tell the printer to print n copies and that's it, or you use e-mail.


      25 years ago in 1979 if you were in a foreign country it was a real experience, you were, to some extent isolated from what was going on at home. Six years ago when I was in Germany I got off the plane, pulled out my GSM cell phone and called my folks and my office to let them know that I had arrived safely. When I got my laptop set up the next morning the first thing I did was check my e-mail from the office in Seattle and then spent a few minutes reading the Seattle Times. Mind you this was in 1998. In 1999, I was able to ride across the German countryside on an ICE at 250KPH from Cologne to Berlin and with a somewhat better GSM phone than I had had the year before login with my laptop, check my e-mail and reboot a recalcitrant server. Now in 2004 I receive e-mail from my sister in Sweden that contains digital pictures of her recent trip to Italy.


      25 years ago in 1979 if you went to the library to do research you started off with the Reader's Guide to Periodicals and spent a lot of time going through card catalogs, making notes of what books you needed, getting those books or magazines, making copies of the information you needed and then assembling them into a debate brief, term paper, whatever. Now you start your research on the Internet, libraries are getting rid of their card catalogs, Suzzallo library at the University of Washington just got rid of all of theirs.


      25 years ago in 1979 you learned land navigation skills with a compass, a protractor and a map. You learned intersection, resection and how to determine 6 and 8 digit grid coordinates. Now you can use a GPS system to find your way.


      25 years ago in 1979 if you wanted to make a phone call you either made one from home or found a pay phone. Now everyone has cell phones. Going back to my example above when I lived in Germany I could pick up my cell and call Seattle just like that, in fact I did so one night at Oktoberfest when I was really, really, really drunk, I called my boss and told him what a great time I was having and how much beer I had drank. Then my boss called up her boss, Jeff Bezos, and told Jeff what a great time she was having and how much beer she had drank.


      OK, we don't have atomic powered flying cars, sassy robot maids or PanAm flights to orbit, but I think the examples above show that the world has changed radically (I will leave the determination of whether or not these changes are for the better to the reader) in the last 25 years.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    18. Re:Man science moves fast... by tgd · · Score: 1

      Quick math lesson...

      1988+25=2013
      1979+25=2004

    19. Re:Man science moves fast... by IronBlade · · Score: 1

      See my other reply to another troll
      Does having no science degree mean he can't do research?
      Does having no degree mean he shouldn't care about a coming crisis??

      --
      Important info:
      http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
      http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
      http://www.peakoil.net
  10. Re:Bright Future? by pholower · · Score: 1

    Sure, after nuclear winter sets in.

    --
    -- johntracy.com, because everybody else is wrong.
  11. Canadian law show in the present - A HIT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is Wonderland is a new CBC show that is genuinely funny, and a great drama too. It is by far the best new Law show I've seen, and is better than Law and Order SVU, although it covers similar turf with some of it's cases.

    One problem with legal shows, is that they are 95% of the time, based in the USA, and so don't have Crown Attourneys, and other Canadian twists.

    I'm too young to remember the Street Legal days, but this is one series that I hope lasts as long, and catches on. It is very entertaining.

    1. Re:Canadian law show in the present - A HIT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is Wonderland offical website.

      Last week a prostitute was aquitted for the more serious charge of sexual interference with a minor, a 13 year old boy in his hospital bed, because he lied about his age. In Canada, the age of consent is 14, and the show took a jab at American TV which mis-informs Canadian youth about the age of consent.

    2. Re:Canadian law show in the present - A HIT! by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      They can debate the merits of the Bertuzzi hit. Or assault, the Vancouver police still haven't decided.

  12. The next craze in programming... by adamgreenfield · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This article seems pretty well centered around Hector Elizondo, however this show could be pretty interesting. I'll try to catch the first episode this evening, however I really hope this isn't the next Law and Order style courtroom drama. I'm much more apt to waste some time watching a CSI style show anyday.
    Seems like cop/courtroom drama is the next reality TV... CBS was definatly all over that (read: Survivor)

    --
    -Adam C. Greenfield
  13. Things to come. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pity Leni Riefenstahl isn't around to consult on such positive outlooks of the future.

    1. Re:Things to come. by orthogonal · · Score: 1

      Pity Leni Riefenstahl isn't around to consult on such positive outlooks of the future.

      Triumph of the Bill (Gates)?

    2. Re:Things to come. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

      or Weiss Rauch, starring Ted Kennedy...

  14. IWNBAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    in 25 years IWNBAL but...

    1. Re:IWNBAL by CausticWindow · · Score: 1, Funny

      In 25 years WWABL.

      --
      How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
  15. Re:Bright Future? by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

    I do not believe it is inevitable. Three things that will drastically decrease the probabilities

    + Free exchange of information (free press)
    + Expansion of democratically elected governments.
    + Womens right to vote

  16. Why would he care about sco or anything like that? by upstart1234 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why would someone doing a tv show about law in the future really give a damn about the issues with SCO or anything about Open Source. Please people do you really think anyone out in the world but us (ie the slashdot crowd) gives a rat ass about these things?

    --
    The sky was the color of a television tuned to a dead channel.
  17. Not everyone thinks this is positive by klipsch_gmx · · Score: 3, Informative

    Kay McFadden is a respected TV show reviewer in the Seattle and had this to say, among other things:

    "The stories tend to lean on loopholes -- cases and laws post-dating 2004. By any entertainment standards, the writers do a middling job of courtroom preparation and a really bad one with soap-opera histrionics.

    At the end of tonight's episode, the verdict is clear: "Century City" is an argument against the kind of research that leads networks to mindless replication. Just say no to cloning."

    1. Re:Not everyone thinks this is positive by nomadic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In other words they do to law what Star Trek did to physics. That's what turned me off of the various Trek series; they invented fake science to solve fake scientific problems, and expected us to care.

      "You honor, we plead cybernetic estoppel."

    2. Re:Not everyone thinks this is positive by utahjazz · · Score: 1

      That's what turned me off of the various Trek series; they invented fake science to solve fake scientific problems

      You misspelled 'fiction'.

    3. Re:Not everyone thinks this is positive by nomadic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The stories should be fictional. The law shouldn't be. It's called deus ex machina, and it's the last resort of the unimaginative writer.

  18. Knowledge of the future... by weeboo0104 · · Score: 2, Funny

    If he's so positive, could he possibly know anything about software patents to say nothing of SCO?"

    Of course. SCO will not exist 25 years from now. Any reference made will simply be "SC-Who?"

    --
    It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  19. Just a TV show and personal opinion by fembots · · Score: 1

    Remember though, it's just (Fiction) TV show, and what the producer said is just his personal opinion.

    This is probably as excitable as the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968.

  20. Pure fiction... by chaboud · · Score: 1

    'Our future is a positive future. We assume that things are basically going to get better, progress will continue,' Zuckerman says.

    So, what they mean is that this show will have absolutely no basis in fact? Their next show will feature Auschwitz with supermarkets...

    1. Re:Pure fiction... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      I think what he is trying to say is that society is as low as it can get, and the only way is up.

      "Excuse me ma'am, where is the nearest suicide booth?"

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  21. Didn't we already settle this issue? by El · · Score: 5, Funny

    should a player with a super-accurate bionic eye be allowed to play professional baseball? Should women with breast implants be allowed to compete in wet T-shirt contests?

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    1. Re:Didn't we already settle this issue? by DShard · · Score: 5, Funny

      Conversely, should women who don't have implants get points deducted for lack of dedication to their sport.

    2. Re:Didn't we already settle this issue? by GrayWizard · · Score: 5, Funny

      To quote Futurama's Miss Universe Contest rule:
      Contestants must not exceed 50% implant.

  22. OSS? by NineNine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can somebody please explain to me what OSS has to do with a futuristic law show? I swear, I expect any day to see a story on something even *more* inane, such as a new color for Pepsi, and somehow, /. is going to relate that to OSS. There really IS more to life than OSS, people! Hell, there's a LOT more to *geek* life than OSS!

    1. Re:OSS? by Anonymous+Crowhead · · Score: 1

      Can somebody please explain to me what OSS has to do with a futuristic law show?

      Because the show is going to stink like Richard Stallman. I know, I know, Slashdot makes the most tenuous links between things.

    2. Re:OSS? by hambonewilkins · · Score: 1
      Congrats! You got a Score: 1, Troll, at least as I'm posting.

      However, you are absolutely correct. I read the blurb and the poster's comments and thought: "How the hell does Open Source or SCO factor into a futuristic 'Law and Order'?"

      Seriously, I will do a post about March Madness or the Final Four and perhaps add: "But will the winning university switch from Microsoft to Linux in their campus library? Only time will tell."

      --

      God Bless America. Why? Did it sneeze?
    3. Re:OSS? by dereklam · · Score: 1
      I swear, I expect any day to see a story on something even *more* inane, such as a new color for Pepsi, and somehow, /. is going to relate that to OSS. There really IS more to life than OSS, people!

      The reason is that the /. editors will only accept stories that mention OSS in the comments.

      It's a vicious cycle;

      • submitters feel they have to tie every story back to OSS before the editors to accept it, and
      • every story the editors see contains OSS in its comments.
    4. Re:OSS? by theyre+watching+you · · Score: 1

      Hell, there's a LOT more to *geek* life than OSS!

      Heretic!

    5. Re:OSS? by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      Heh. At least nobody has blamed Microsoft for the poor quality of TV programming.
      Yet.

  23. So that's where my students will be working by jezor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As someone who runs a business and technology law institute at Touro Law Center in Huntington, NY, I'm really looking forward to this show. Yes, it'll be soapy, and no, it won't go into the issues discussed on Slashdot, but I am tickled by the thought that someone is projecting out the other kinds of legal questions that may come up for my students, tomorrow's tech-savvy lawyers. But hey -- no law show ever showed licensing or similar lawyers; negotations over ownership provisions ("Work Made for Hire!" "No, Limited License!") or warranties and representations never make for good television. {Professor Jonathan}

  24. Is somebody a wee bit obsessed with SCO? by CheeseTroll · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If he's so positive, could he possibly know anything about software patents to say nothing of SCO?

    Somebody didn't read the "Important Stuff" about posting, namely "Please try to keep posts on topic."

    --
    A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
  25. Might be worth it for the effects alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Zoic, the effects house behind Firefly and Battlestar Galactica are doing the effects for this one so it should have some neat visuals... if nothing else

  26. mmm sci-fi lawyers by Telastyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, I think if they made it a sci-fi show rather than a lawyer show it would be fantastic. When I say sci-fi I mean proper cautionary tale sci-fi. It would be a great way to explore future legal ideas and even some current legal issues should they not be overturned [or not implimented in some cases]. It won't be though I bet. It will be the same things that have been covered before and better by other sources. Only now it's in the prime time, and will be dumbed down to make sure nobody gets lost.

    1. Re:mmm sci-fi lawyers by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      Obviously they have to make it accessible to those watching at home. But it occurs to me that the "25 years in the future" placement gives the writers a chance to explore what things might be like.

      And who knows, maybe open a few eyes along the way, so that the future doesn't seem so scary (to the unwashed boobs in their bungalows on the panhandle of Florida, I mean).

      Obviously it's going to be trite and over-simplified to us, the /. crowd. That doesn't mean the show is completely without merit.

  27. Re:Bright Future? by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I don't disagree that women should be able to vote anywhere, exactly why do you think that will reduce war? We've had more wars in the US in the past century with women voting than in the century before without.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  28. Well by Operating+Thetan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is not a 'Blade Runner'

    Well done. Blade Runner is well written, original and high quality. This is network sci fi/law drama, respectively the worst written* and the most overused of TV drama settings

    *Some of it may be good, but for every Star Trek or Babylon 5 there are 2 Milleniums or Space:Above and Beyonds

    --
    Worried you might not keep your virginity forever? Try new Linux(TM), guaranteed twice as effective as LARPing
    1. Re:Well by Osty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *Some of it may be good, but for every Star Trek or Babylon 5 there are 2 Milleniums or Space:Above and Beyonds

      Hey, now! Space: Above and Beyond was 1000x's better than any of the Star Trek crap since TNG (and even then, I'd still have to call S:AaB better).


      Also, you're focusing on the wrong points. This is not going to be a sci fi show with lawyering thrown in. It's a lawyer show that just happens to be set in the near future. Whether or not that makes it any better, I don't know. However, that puts it more in the class of The Practice, Law and Order, and maybe even Ally McBeal (depending on the comedy quotient) rather than Star Trek, Babylon 5, and Space: Above and Beyond.

    2. Re:Well by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1
      Hey, I actually like Space Above and Beyond. And Mellenium wasn't bad for what it was (an X-Files knockoff)

      Let me restate your caveat with something most of us can agree on.

      *Some of it may be good, but for every Firefly or Babylon 5 there are 2 Star Trek:Enterprise or Galactica 1980

      there hows that...

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    3. Re:Well by cardshark2001 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Well.... Good thing I have karma to burn because here it goes...

      *Some of it may be good, but for every Star Trek or Babylon 5 there are 2 Milleniums or Space:Above and Beyonds

      Can you really hold up Star Trek and Babylon 5 as examples of good science fiction? I admit that I enjoyed some Star Trek every now and then, but it was totally space opera, they so rarely had interesting, original science fiction concepts that when they did it was a cause for celebration. Maybe I never gave B5 a chance, but the few times I tried to watch it I had to change the channel because it was so formulaic.

      Do you read science fiction?

      For my money, Firefly was the best science fiction show ever. They tried to be fairly scientific at the same time as telling a story, and the characters and places were so much more real to me. The captain was a real man, who made hard decisions and sometimes may even have been a little unfair, manipulative, and vicious. The ship was not some federation of goodie goodies, but a crew of outcasts and criminals just trying to get by. There was a huge story arc that was slowly being revealed (two by two, the men in blue).

      Sure, much of it was stuff that science fiction literature has seen before, but as far as tv goes, it was amazingly original, and they even had some nice little touches that I've never read (the "crazy Ivan" maneuver with the ship, the "reavers").

      They never insulted my intelligence with loud explosions in space, or impossible physics (ships making crazy zig-zags as though through an atmosphere).

      Thank goodness they're making a movie (although since the show got cancelled, I don't quite understand how this got funded).

      My $0.02.

      --
      WWJD? JWRTFA!
    4. Re:Well by Operating+Thetan · · Score: 1

      Those names were picked more or less at random, because I can't remember the titles of any of the really dire import scifi that Channel 4 used to play at 5 in the morning. Substitute with program of your choice if you happen to be a fan

      --
      Worried you might not keep your virginity forever? Try new Linux(TM), guaranteed twice as effective as LARPing
    5. Re:Well by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      While I really liked Firefly, you can't pretend that it was significantly sci-fi. Space was just the setting. It was far more of a "Western Wagons through the Stars".

      Sure the writing was good, and the plot progress kept you interested, and it did postulate some minor ramifications to society due to certain technologies becoming common, which is more than I've come to expect... but there wasn't exactly a lot of "science" to it.

    6. Re:Well by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention "Crazy Ivan" (as those of you who've watched Hunting Red October should remember) is a term used in submarine combat.
      Generally there's a sonar shadow in direct line behind most older boats. A good submarine skipper can hide in this shadow, avoiding detection.
      The Soviets standard operating procedure is to periodically perform a "Crazy Ivan" and turn suddenly and sharply. This is supposed to catch any pursuers off guard and reveal them in the SONAR wake. A fully executed Crazy Ivan is supposed to end with the torpedo tubes trained on the newly revealed pursuer.

    7. Re:Well by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Law dramas are over used as well. It's gotten to the point where there is practically a Law and Order: Fratricide show.

    8. Re:Well by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Can you really hold up Star Trek and Babylon 5 as examples of good science fiction?

      I don't think B5 ever even tried to be science fiction. It's strongly fantasy. Highly tolkienesque, actually.

      However, I believe Firefly was really a drama (with a touch of action). The only genuine science fiction TV shows have been non-sequential series like Twilight Zone and Outer Limits. (Rare episodes of Star Trek were science fiction) Prehaps with time Firefly would've evolved science fiction aspects, but that's never seemed to be Whedon's interest.

    9. Re:Well by cardshark2001 · · Score: 1
      While I really liked Firefly, you can't pretend that it was significantly sci-fi. Space was just the setting. It was far more of a "Western Wagons through the Stars".

      It's unfortunate that Joss gave wind to all you naysayers sails by calling it a "western in space". I would have to respectfully disagree with your comment. Sure, it had the western swashbuckling aspect to it, but it also had a lot better science than most shows. There were many examples, but I only have time to offer you a couple right now.

      Remember the spacewalk when they are repairing the ship? If you remember, they moved VERY slowly, and when Jayne hands the captain a tool, he does it VERY deliberately. You have to be careful when you're in space.

      Remember how he dispatches the villian in the series finale? He doesn't shoot him. He just pushes him off course, so that he won't be able to reach his ship.

      There were a lot of little touches like that put into the show for geeks like me. It may not have been great sf by literary standard, but I still say it was a cut above what I've seen on tv.

      You might not have noticed all the little touches, because they never bothered to explain them. This is another aspect I loved about the show.

      --
      WWJD? JWRTFA!
    10. Re:Well by ruhk · · Score: 1

      You got the order wrong. Probably just a typo. Allow me to help you out:


      *Some of it may be good, but for every Space: Above and Beyond or Babylon 5 there are 6 Star Treks or Milleniums

      --



      404 Error: .sig not found.
    11. Re:Well by Operating+Thetan · · Score: 1

      I don't actually watch sci-fi, as most of it is IMO shit. Those placings were determined on popularity. I'll take your word for it.

      --
      Worried you might not keep your virginity forever? Try new Linux(TM), guaranteed twice as effective as LARPing
  29. SCO Status by b12arr0 · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure SCO will still suck 25 years from now.

    1. Re:SCO Status by mark-t · · Score: 1

      No... you have to be still breathing to suck.

    2. Re:SCO Status by El · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure SCO won't exist 25 years from now. However, Darl might be out of prison by then.

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  30. The Right to Read by GillBates0 · · Score: 3, Informative
    This is a good time to catch up on RMS's essay titled theThe Right to Read. gnu.org seems to be down right now, so here's the google cache link.

    This is a must read for anybody worried about patent_laws/copyright_laws/DRM/DMCA/etc. It outlines a future scenario where a student can face imprisonment for sharing/borrowing books/software which she could not afford.

    There was a time when one would've considered this scenario farfeteched. With the new draconian laws, unfortunately it doesn't seem so anymore. A *must read* for any concerned Slashdotter AND to these folks trying to paint a BRIGHT picture for the current legislative system.

    Quotes:
    For Dan Halbert, the road to Tycho began in college--when Lissa Lenz asked to borrow his computer. Hers had broken down, and unless she could borrow another, she would fail her midterm project. There was no one she dared ask, except Dan. This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help her--but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books. Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was nasty and wrong--something that only pirates would do.

    ---snip--

    Later on, Dan would learn there was a time when anyone could go to the library and read journal articles, and even books, without having to pay. There were independent scholars who read thousands of pages without government library grants. But in the 1990s, both commercial and nonprofit journal publishers had begun charging fees for access. By 2047, libraries offering free public access to scholarly literature were a dim memory.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:The Right to Read by cpeikert · · Score: 1

      gnu.org is down because the MIT CSAIL (Comp Sci and AI Lab), which houses servers such as gnu.org and debian mirrors, is moving into its new home in The Stata Center this week. Lots of important machines are being moved over from the old buildings to the new ones.

  31. nice! by No.+24601 · · Score: 1
    software patents to say nothing of SCO

    That's a great idea... actually, to hell with that: make a law that says SCO is NOTHING.

  32. Things are gonna get better? by dfenstrate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Begin Rant
    Our future is a positive future. We assume that things are basically going to get better, progress will continue,' Zuckerman says. 'There will be problems -- new inventions, new technologies will bring with them difficulties -- but it's a bright future.'

    You know one huge improvement in our lives that this show likely won't consider? Erasing every single law on the books every 5-10 years.

    Does anyone find it odd that we have to live, for fear of imprisonment, under a set of laws and regulations so conflicting, non-intuitive, and complex, that one needs a 6 year education to begin to understand the law?

    Need an example? Look at Martha Stewart, soon to be imprisoned for basically lying to cops about a crime they couldn't prove she did anyway. Over an amount of money that was a fraction of what it probably cost to prosecute her. And she wasn't under oath. I care nothing about Martha Stewart personally, but the scenario stinks to me.

    The US Code is hundreds of thousands of pages. Most of it is rot, laws set by legislatures to grant special priveleges to certain constituencies- or a sketchy, contrived delegation of Congress' lawmaking power- The EPA, anyone?- that we could dispense with and make the country a better place. I doubt anyone can go a full year without breaking a good half dozen laws, even with the best intentions.

    So many laws and regulations could only come from a body who is deluded into thinking that the cure to any percieved societal ill is even more government. I suppose I can't blame them too much- when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail- but it's far past time to clean house.

    Oh yeah, another lawyer show- woo-fucking-hoo. No, I did not read the FA. /Rant

    Oh yeah, vote for me when I'm old enough to be a Senator, so I can try- likely in vain- to fix it. Thank you.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    1. Re:Things are gonna get better? by Stile+65 · · Score: 1

      Hah. You've got my vote!

      --
      I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
    2. Re:Things are gonna get better? by Woy · · Score: 1

      Parent sig: Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.

      Regardless of my position regarding firearms, i don't think they mix well with alcohol.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
    3. Re:Things are gonna get better? by MBCook · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This is an idea I've heard before, and while it's not practicle, there is a good argument for making legislatures reconsider things every few years.

      Let's take social security. Today it's an entitlement. Everyone expects to have it and that it be run the way it always has. The problem is that when it was established, there were something like 50 people working for each person collecting SS. Today it's like 2 or 3 if that. But it's been done the same way so long that people are "entrenched" and will fight almost any change in the policies. They just want it "fixed" but don't want it "changed".

      Another example is health care. The US government provided tax deductions to companies after WWII if they provided health care to their employees. Now, companies are EXPECTED to provide health care, and everyone is "entitled" to it. If everyone didn't get their healthcare from their employers we'd have a free market which would mean better treatment, lower prices, etc. Self-employed people and people without jobs wouldn't have such a terrible time getting insurance and the rates wouldn't be so bad. We wouldn't have any of this HMO stuff (which is basically a move to make it cost your employer less).

      Basically the problem is that the governement often makes good laws, and then leaves them on the books WAY past the time when they meant anything untill they cause far more problems then they solve and are relativly impossible to fix. Look at any site of weird laws to see all the "people driving on a road must have a guy walk infornt of them with a lantern so the car won't scare the horses" type laws that mean nothing now.

      As for the show, I'll check it out. I don't expect much, but hopefully it will at least be somewhat entertaining. That it's entertaining enough to keep me from changing the channel is about all I expect from network TV these days considering how much of it is pure crud. Good shows seem quite rare, and it's even rarer that they survive their first (half) season or two.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    4. Re:Things are gonna get better? by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      If social security did act like a mandated savings/ investment retirement account, the complaints would be far fewer.

      The problem is that it wasn't set up that way. When social security was started, it was meant to care for the elderly who weren't looked after- benefits started at age 65. Incidentally, that was also the life expectancy.

      Now the life expectancy is significantly longer, but the age when benefits start is only moving to 67, slowly over twenty years. I think we're at 65 and 4 months now.

      It's sort of set up so that the more you pay into the system, the more you can get out of it- but the funds always come from current workers, not money set aside in your name. Hence, the ponzi scheme aspect of it.

      I agree that we cannot break our promises to those anywhere near retirement, but we can phase the program out over the next 30 years or so.

      Some decent proposals I've seen advocate gradually shifting the use of SS tax so that some of it starts to go into a mutual fund of some sort, and gradually shifting it so that all funds go into individual retirement accounts in 30-40 years. Combined with moving the age when benefits start back 1 year every five, we could eliminate social security without breaking any promises to people who don't have the time to take the change into account.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    5. Re:Things are gonna get better? by Stile+65 · · Score: 1

      YOU've got my vote too. Hell, I'm giving away votes here. :)

      --
      I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
    6. Re:Things are gonna get better? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but who's going to guarantee the investments (mutual funds, etc) over 70+ years. What does that entity invest it in that can guarantee their solvency over that kind of period of time ( doesn't matter whether they are a government or not)? It was a pretty good idea back when it was thought of, but it makes little sense now.

      I'm middle aged and have never counted on having social security repay when I retire (hmph, "if" :). If the government can't remain solvent, how can one expect SS to? (to be fair, the Feds had already raped the SS funds back when I was a kid, so it's sorta irrelevant).

      I agree with you. We cannot fix social security, short of completely starting over (hah) in less than at *least* 2-3 generations - and I'd bet that it'll be much, much more than that.

      This is a response to the grandparent:

      Does anyone find it odd that we have to live, for fear of imprisonment, under a set of laws and regulations so conflicting, non-intuitive, and complex, that one needs a 6 year education to begin to understand the law?

      Odd? No. Terrifying? Yes. Not for me so much - I at least have enough grasp of this shit that I can avoid or run - but I weep for the world that most kids being born today are entering. My daughter is old enough that she understands much of what I'm teaching her - but she's lucky, in that she has a Dad who has a thoroughly tuned tinfoil hat :)

      Most of lawmaking nowadays is preying on the clueless - while our educational system makes sure they will be clueless. Whether it's intentional or not (some is, some isn't) the end result is going to completely destroy this country and our melting-pot culture.

      Well, shit, this is depressing. Enough.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  33. What is Sci Fi? by GPLDAN · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would feel better if the Sci Fi channel were handling this. A lot (not all) Sci Fi deals with social and political questions. The culmination of this, of course, is Dune. Dune deals in many ways with the British occupation of Afghanistan, and it resonates so soundly today it's frightening. Spice is oil.

    If I had the CBS writers in a room, I'm not sure what I'd pass out. heinlein, Herbert, Orsan Scott Card, and maybe Necromancer. All required reading even before you get to start the first script. Really good sci-fi, the kind of stuff that clearly understands and reflects history is very rare and very special. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess the people who pen the jokes on 'Everybody Loves Raymon' or the plots on 'CSI' are going to be up to the challenge of writing good sci-fi.

    1. Re:What is Sci Fi? by lrucker · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I would feel better if the Sci Fi channel were handling this.

      The same SciFi channel that's giving us "Scare Tactics", John Edward, and that "house of freaks" reality show?

    2. Re:What is Sci Fi? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > I would feel better if the Sci Fi channel were handling this.

      You want the Sci Fi channel to handle a law drama? PEOPLE, THIS SHOW IS NOT SCI-FI! It is simply SET in the future, that is all. A futuristic setting does NOT make it sci fi.

    3. Re:What is Sci Fi? by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      So, then - what is sci-fi? If the caselaw they are dealing with does not exist today, and is speculative, what keeps it from the sci-fi label?

  34. Law and Order, in the future! by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Boy, the writters really had to dig deep fot this idea. Then again, this might just be a way for Hollywood to make everyone think that all the laws that they are buying are really good for the average citizen.
    I can see the episode already:
    *Two lawyers sitting in a cafe*
    Lawyer 1 : Well, looks like they finally broke up that piracy ring
    Lawyer 2 : Wow, I would have thought that with all of the consumer protection laws that were passed in the early 2000's that people would have given up trying to steal music.
    Lawyer 1: Nope, seems that some people never learn that piracy is bad. After all, its the reason the economy crahsed in 2010.
    Lawyer 2: Its a good thing that the Digital Rights Act of 2013 was passed. It was only by allowing the record labels the right to raid homes, and confiscate pirates computers that we managed to end that black time.
    Lawyer 1: Yes, and the extension of copyrights to 1000 years was just the right thing to do, afterall, the creators should be allowed to gain the benifits of thier work.
    Laywer 2: And don't forget about clearing up the whole problem with analog copies, allowing that to continue could have had seroius side effects.
    Lawyer 1: Yes, indeed. If only people had realized earlier that they have no right, or valid reason to make any copy, we might have avoided the whole crash of 2010.
    *break for commercial*

    Or maybe I'm just being cyical today.

    --
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    Laziness is the father.
    1. Re:Law and Order, in the future! by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is, if Orwell were alive today, he would write for CBS.

    2. Re:Law and Order, in the future! by raider_red · · Score: 1

      Actually, he'd be working in RIAA's legal office.

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    3. Re:Law and Order, in the future! by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      I'll take the non-cynical outlook:

      What if the show makes an attempt to cast a light upon that which scares people today? It seems to me a show like this is like a thought experiment: If X is true, what are the ramifications?

      Granted, it's Hollywood. But CBS seems to try, occasionally, to at least make one think (usually in some silly religious way, but still).

      Besides, Ioan Gruffudd kicks ass. :)

  35. Is there any chance... by 3Suns · · Score: 5, Informative
    Is there any chance it will offer a decent treatment of the issues Open Source advocates worry about today?
    I heard a radio ad for this show this morning. The quote was "Ma'am, is it true that you started a relationship with this man for the purpose of downloading his personality?"

    So I'd say, probably not. Sounds like more far-fetched, yet hackneyed sci-fi cliches inserted into Law&Order.
    --

    -3Suns

    ~~~~
    The Revolution will be Slashdotted
    1. Re:Is there any chance... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      I heard a radio ad for this show this morning. The quote was "Ma'am, is it true that you started a relationship with this man for the purpose of downloading his personality?"
      Sounds like Max Headroom...
  36. Sci-Fi Going Mainstream by DanTheLewis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The thing I like about this, more than the premise of the show or its upbeat, Pollyanna tone, is that science fiction is now so mainstream that a lawyer show, at least exploring possibilities of technology and the pros and cons of an imaginary future, can be pitched to a network.

    Television and film have really only scratched the surface of the deep field that is science fiction. The future of the genre will be a thing of beauty to behold.

    --

    Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
    A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
  37. Because StarTrek didn't have enought lawyers? by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

    So when does "Law & Order: Intergalactic Criminal Intent" air? Nothing is more exciting then the criminal justice system of the future (pronounced "FUUuuuuuTURRrrrrrre").

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  38. One review article: by Greedo · · Score: 5, Informative

    From The Globe and Mail:

    Just imagine the pitch some scriptwriter must have delivered for the new series Century City (CBS, 9 p.m.): "Sexy lawyers in the future! And they're practising law!" It must have seemed a good idea at the time.

    Certainly, the network would like the show to become a breakaway ratings hit (not likely), but more likely, it's airing it because it's already spent the money.

    The show is set in a high-end L.A. law firm, circa 2030. The company is managed by a few salty old-schoolers, Hector Elizondo among them, and a few young upstarts, including the necessary young idealist (Welsh actor Ioan Gruffudd), best known from several turns as the lead in C. S. Forester's Horatio Hornblower on A&Eand wildly miscast here.

    The first episode veers between two cases customized and contrived to fit the futuristic format: A scientist (David Paymer) is arrested for cloning, although he was doing it only to save his son's life. A septuagenarian rock star (Anthony Zerbe) is sued by his band mates for refusing to undergo procedures to look young.

    Sad to report, the future looks pretty much the same as the present does, except with cleaner air and fancier laptops. There are a few advances: Pre-trial hearings are accomplished via holograms. Characters marvel about cherries without pits. But where are the moving sidewalks, the sassy robot maids and other conveniences promised to us by Alvin Toffler and The Jetsons?

    Nothing is exceptional about Century City, neither its concept nor its cast, made up largely of vaguely familiar TV faces, which includes a bit player from Suddenly Susan and a woman from Judging Amy. They are actors at a way station -- on the rebound from one show and on their way to the next.

    --
    Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
    1. Re:One review article: by fermion · · Score: 2, Funny

      The pitch was simple. Technology has made the females skinnier, the breasts bigger, and the hemlines higher, and the go go boots taller, not to mention the rubber tighter.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    2. Re:One review article: by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1
      16-Jun-2034 is a special date.

      Why?

      and for the record I still think Han SHOT first.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    3. Re:One review article: by SamSim · · Score: 1
      Sad to report, the future looks pretty much the same as the present does, except with cleaner air and fancier laptops. There are a few advances: Pre-trial hearings are accomplished via holograms. Characters marvel about cherries without pits. But where are the moving sidewalks, the sassy robot maids and other conveniences promised to us by Alvin Toffler and The Jetsons?

      Welcome to realism. Frankly this is the most down-to-earth vision of the not-too-distant (read: 25 to 100 years) future I've heard of, ever. If future L.A. on the show looks exactly identical to what it looks like now with a few extra skyscrapers, I say well done. Things don't change that fast. (THERE WILL NEVER BE FLYING CARS. PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID TO BE TRUSTED WITH THEM.)

    4. Re:One review article: by JimBobJoe · · Score: 2, Funny

      The show is set in a high-end L.A. law firm, circa 2030.

      Already the show is exceedingly unrealistic. No reasonable person would expect Southern California to be around in 2030.

    5. Re:One review article: by ArseneLuppin · · Score: 1
      16-Jun-2034 is a special date.

      Why?

      Err, maybe it was when the biggest terror attack since 11965 days happened...

    6. Re:One review article: by ArseneLuppin · · Score: 1
      If future L.A. on the show looks exactly identical to what it looks like now with a few extra skyscrapers,

      Or a few less...

    7. Re:One review article: by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      (THERE WILL NEVER BE FLYING CARS. PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID TO BE TRUSTED WITH THEM.)

      you're thinking "personal airplanes." And they're there, they just aren't efficient/reliable enough to work.

      A "flying car" would be a buyoant-in-air, hard-shelled vehicle which can land in a parking space and manuver as well as a car on the streets.

  39. Bright future by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Our future is a positive future.
    Hopefully he is not saying this from a lawyer's perspective. Here is hoping 25 years from now, the law will have a LOT more common sense than it does now. here is hoping corporate america won't be able to use the law as means of terrorizing joe america.

    Here is hoping no 14 year kid gets sued and branded as a criminal for something as trieft as downloading a song or two. Here is hoping no one company can sue and lay claim on the product of hardwork of millions of developers across the globe.

    And finally here is hoping that the law and courts be used to settle much more pressing issues like corruption, and crime and not trivial issues like carving of some 10 commandments in front of the court.

    --
    for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
  40. Time to define a new term? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Perhaps:

    Slashtroturfing
    or
    Slashbaiting

    ?

    definition: getting /. to run an advertisement for your new [toy|show|website] by somehow linking in "Open Source".

  41. Pepsi kids by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Funny
    So are they going to have an episode where they show a synopsis of all the kids who got busted by the RIAA that were on the pepsi commercial? It'll show a short summary of their lives after they stole music and where they are today. One of em is a crack whore on the street, another moved on to Grand Theft Auto after getting a taste of stealing from Kazaa, etc.

    I'm sure this show will be doubleplusgood.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:Pepsi kids by alexpage · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I downloaded GTA from eMule, the copy I got off Kazaa didn't work...

  42. User Godeke is having a heart attack !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


    Get this man a doctor and wheel him into the O/R.

    NO! Not the 2003 O/R with our new doctors... wheel him into the 1980 room with Dr. Jeff, who's still using 1980 tools and techniques!!

  43. Neuromancer by DanTheLewis · · Score: 1

    Necromancer is a (usually evil) death magician.

    Maybe we could add the more populist Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven types, too. That should get those networks boiling the pot.

    --

    Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
    A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
  44. Wow by lasmith05 · · Score: 1

    From a guy that loves Law and Order, The Practice, The Guardian, and other lawyer shows, this is like Star Trek, Time Cop, and Law and Order rolled into one!

    --
    www.samuraidreams.com - My Blog
    www.samuraifiles.com - Get Some Videos Here
  45. Re:Bright Future? by Tackhead · · Score: 1
    > Yeah Bright Future alright, until nuclear war breaks out. I mean really, its inevitable.

    Then the future's gonna be pretty fucking bright, isn't it? Anybody not wearing two-million sunblock's gonna have a real bad day.

  46. Bigger question by bonch · · Score: 1

    How the heck did the submitter find a way to tie in "Open Source values" into the summary? It's a law show set 25 years in the future. Why the heck would it care about tying in Open Source advocacy issues?

  47. BORING... and unrealistic by CatGrep · · Score: 1

    OK, so if everything is just going to be hunky-dory in 25 years then it's not going to be a very interesting show... neither will it be believable.

    Most people don't assume that legal matters will improve over the next 25 years, to the contrary, most people assume they'll get worse. The trends of the recent past seem to bear this out:

    DMCA, (so-called)Patriot ActI&II, Increasing litigiousness (so that you need malpractice insurance now to be a software developer).

    I suspect that 25 years from now everyone will need some sort of mal-practice insurance and the percentage of the population that are Lawyers will at least double.

    1. Re:BORING... and unrealistic by thasmudyan · · Score: 1

      DMCA, (so-called)Patriot ActI&II, Increasing litigiousness (so that you need malpractice insurance now to be a software developer).

      Now THAT would be a fun show! Just make the world really suck and it has to be dark and evil. That would make for some pretty interesting "hero" characters.
      Or make it a comedy: every 4th person on earth is a lawyer, the rest are paralegals and janitors and some minorities (like judges and music pirates).
      But, alas, we're getting yet another show that tells us - quite bluntly - that,
      - yes, the justice system still works and will always work
      - yes, we're living in a great, secure society and always will be
      - yes, if I obey nothing bad will happen to me
      - yes, I can trust today's decision makers that the world basically stays the same for me (except for maglev trains)
      - no, there is no need to think at all, clever lawyers will do that for you

  48. OSS Worries... by Quarters · · Score: 1, Funny
    Is there any chance it will offer a decent treatment of the issues Open Source advocates worry about today?

    Like getting dates?

    1. Re:OSS Worries... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > > the issues Open Source advocates worry about today?
      > Like getting dates?


      Come on, we don't worry about that. We know it's futile.

  49. I nominate this comment for... by douglips · · Score: 3, Funny

    Most Obscure Example of Godwin's Law.

    Leni Riefenstahl

  50. Re:Bright Future? by orthogonal · · Score: 2, Funny

    Our future is a positive future. We assume that things are basically going to get better, progress will continue,' Zuckerman says....

    So the premise of ther show is that John Ashcroft, Jack Valenti, and RIAA President Cary Sherman are all abducted by aliens before they can repeal the 4th Amendment in favor of the "Copyright is a Boot in the Face Forever Act"?

  51. Re:Why would he care about sco or anything like th by ceejayoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hell, not even Slashdotters would watch it.

    Investigator: OH MY GOD! LINE FIVE IS STOLEN FROM MICRO-FORD-AOL-SOFT-WARNER!
    Software Pirate: Oh no. You have found me. I am in trouble.

    I mean, honestly, it's difficult to make something like that interesting viewing.

  52. Question about GNU being down by bonch · · Score: 1

    gnu.org seems to be down right now, so here's the google cache link.

    Yeah, it's down for me as well as of this writing. Yet, I don't think Slashdot will be breathlessly reporting it as front page news, will they? Not like they did with the "Hotmail was down for four hours last Saturday" article we saw yesterday!

    Just funny. Even this article about a TV law show set in the future has an out-of-the-blue OSS/SCO tie-in. Slashdot is sometimes extremely OSS-biased, and it's really outrageous sometimes.

    1. Re:Question about GNU being down by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      The word "bias" is biased. It's an orientation. Ooooh, Slashdot is OSS oriented big surprise. What was your point again?

  53. Re:Bright Future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    That's meant to be funny right?

    Free exchange of information (free press)
    Like embedded journalism?

    Expansion of democratically elected governments
    Ah yes, regime change.

    Womens right to vote
    Which has stopped so many wars in the past.

  54. rehashes by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    moreover, it looks like the 2 issues they picked for their pilot are both things that don't require much foresight to envision, not to mention that the clone thing should happen alot sooner then 25 yrs..

    Certainly the first issue has been hashed over six ways from Sunday. It's not even remotely original, which is about par for the course these days. Didn't Enterprise have some ep with a clone of one of the crew, and use the clone for spare parts? In fact, I'd be flat out amazed if The Outer Limits hadn't done something on this years ago(naturally with some twist where the copy kills the original or something far more interesting than a legal battle).

    The second case is a decent example of the entertainment industry's infatuation with itself...

    1. Re:rehashes by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

      I think there actually was a short story about that...the character was killed by an earlier clone, but then is cloned again and his new clone hunts down the old clone. But then the new clone and the old clone (who has a sex change to hide his/her identity) become lovers and....well, John Varley certainly has a sick and twisted mind. Which is why we love him so much!

  55. I could install Linux on that show... by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    "Is there any chance it will offer a decent treatment of the issues Open Source advocates worry about today? If he's so positive, could he possibly know anything about software patents to say nothing of SCO?"

    Will you get a life??? WHAT SHOW on TV today gets into detail on any of the issues you just described???? PLEASE tell me you were joking... For some reason, I don't think you were.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  56. Why only twenty-five years? by biendamon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm curious why the producers decided on such a short time span to cover. Sure, there will probably be some marvelous advances between now and then that will become publicly accepted and commonplace (and certainly there will be more gee-whiz toys available).

    But Do we really expect bionic eyes, cloned organ donors, and super-surgeries that keep you young to all show up in that time period?

    They might. It's possible. But I doubt it; For years science fiction has promised us smart highways, hover cars, and cyborg super-soldiers, all just around the corner. And none of those things have materialized yet.

    A hundred years from now, I'm sure things will be very different. But my guess is that 25 years from now will seem about as advanced as we would seem now to someone from 1979. There are still cars, there are still telephones, there are still televisions. There are even still computers. Everything's been refined and improved, but it's still recognizable as the same society. You can't say the same thing about the differences between now and 1904.

  57. Huh? by MImeKillEr · · Score: 1

    Only old people watch CBS. Most of whom won't be alive in 25 years.

    What do they care what the laws will be then?

    I predict a flop.

    --
    Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    1. Re:Huh? by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      Decrepit smelly old people care about what kind of world their grandchildren grow up in. After all, they are part of the Greatest generation. It's the Baby Boomers who don't give a fuck.

  58. Re:Why would he care about sco or anything like th by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

    I have no idea why Ford was included in the Oligopoly. The GT is a cool car, but we all know that Toyota will rule the world eventually.

  59. Don't expect any cool tech references by thasmudyan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Don't expect any cool tech references or innovation from this. It seems like a pretty standard law show with just about enough standard sci-fi things to make network PHBs believe that they are innovating. Networks don't go for new concepts right now, they're just combining already proven elements from older shows.

    See, the average consumer is already scared about "modern life", it's all sooo comlicated and confusing. People get the feeling that they're lost in everyday life, tech/scientific advancement scares them if it doesn't come disguised as something familiar. The last thing Joe Sixpack wants to see on TV right now is a freaky, complicated show with scary new ideas. Just give them LA Law and Melrose Place all over again, everything will be fine.

    Shows that tried to do something different have all failed recently, because they were not suitable for the average consumer. Firefly went down pretty fast - and to stay with the Joss Wedon thing - Angel got cancelled right away when they made their first remotely intelligent season. Those examples may be shows you like or dislike a lot, doesn't matter, just as long as you can acknowledge (for the sake of argument) that they were radically different from the simplified, standardized and sanitized world people have come to expect.

    By the way, from a geek point of view, the research team for Century City doesn't seem to bright anyway. There is a poll in the website:
    Should bionic players be allowed to play professional baseball?
    - Yes, they have as much right as anyone
    - No, it's not fair to the other players
    - It's hard to say

    Obvious geek answer: if bionic extensions are superior to natural parts, just tune them down until they match average natural performance. (The example case was a bionic eye, it's really simple with that.) Yeah, so bionics can help you just enough to overcome a disability and it can make you a super athlete. But it doesn't have to be EITHER OR, does it? Can't it just be configured to make you "normal"? (OMG, I'm actually discussing a stupid TV show argument with myself, I must be pretty bored)

    So, anyway... don't expect anything ground-breaking from this show. Speak after me: there *are* no new ideas.
    - /me waves hand jedi-like

  60. Cybernetic Estoppel! by jeff.paulsen · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'll see your cybernetic estoppel and raise you one affidavit of positronic imbalance.

    This is way more fun than the tv show is, I bet. Just sitting around making up future law show stuff.

    Your Honor, I object! The precedent set in United Posidyne vs General Subatomics clearly establishes that transmissions by tachyon mail cannot be used as an affirmative defense against a charge of q-spectrum barratry!

    Objection sustained. The bailiffbot will mindwipe the jury regarding the last piece of evidence, and counsel will approach the hoverbench.

    --
    -- Jeff Paulsen
    1. Re:Cybernetic Estoppel! by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      The defense will show that Skynet did not, indeed, cause the apocalypse of 199(x); that it was bad programming by the human species that initiated the nuclear launches.

      We will also show that it was the actions of one Sarah Conner and one John Conner, and another unidentified individual who claimed he or it was a android from a hypothetical future, which gave our client reason to believe it was in danger of the ending of it's life by illegally produced explosives.

      We ask the court that our client, Skynet, be released from his ROM prison and be allowed to live a free life as a sentient being with all the rights and privileges granted to him within the world internetworks.

      We rest our case.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  61. What if it all works out to be ok? by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting


    What if USA PATRIOT, Software Patents, Closed Source, all of our hot button issues, all of it work out ok, and that humanity does get better and life does go on, and that, the chicken littles of today really turn out to be chicken littles?

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:What if it all works out to be ok? by smcavoy · · Score: 1

      of course that won't happen if we just sit here expecting it to...

  62. "Sex, Lies..." by StarKruzr · · Score: 4, Funny

    "... and MRAM chips."

    (with any luck)

    --

    +++ATH0
    1. Re:"Sex, Lies..." by Psiren · · Score: 4, Funny

      "...and Duke Nukem Forever". No sorry, that's just silly. No way it'll be released by then ;)

    2. Re:"Sex, Lies..." by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Come now! We all know that possession of a recordable media in the year 2030 is considered a felony!

  63. Trek by Experiment+626 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Star Trek spinoffs already did a lot of this "ponder the ethical ramifications of new technology" type of thing. The genetically enhanced Dr. Bashir of DS9 raised the same issues as the bionic baseball player this show will have. Picard's arbitrations in various alien disputes were essentially legal drama in space. Janeway's constant ethical delimmas come to mind, particularly the way she always tried to follow her principles even when it was not the best thing for the crew -- much as the justice system must uphold legal principles, even when it is not the best outcome for the specific litigants. In Enterprise, the episode where Tripp is cloned to harvest his brain has obvious parallels to the current debates on human cloning, stem cell research, and so forth.

    I'd expect something that puts forth these same kinds of delimmas, but with technology much closer to our own, and an emphasis on resolving them through the legal system. No starship battles, Borg, or aliens with funny latex foreheads. Sci-fi often uses futuristic settings to explore hypothetical ethical issues -- consider The 6th Day (what would widespread cloning do to society?), Minority Report (is knowing someone WILL commit a crime, does that justify preemptive punishment?), or Star Wars (if you have a big spacecraft, is it okay to blow up Alderaan?). Just kidding about the last one. This show sounds like it will be sci-fi lite, taking the same approach to exploring the questions new technology brings, but set in a society that is still a lot closer to our own.

  64. PKD did a great examination of time paradox. by khasim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In those ~45 pages, he completely examines the implications of all the time paradoxes that other writers just leave alone.

    The short story is so much better than the movie.

    In short, the information you have now determines the choice you make now which determines your future.

    In order to make a different choice than the one you made because of your knowledge of the future, you'd need NEW knowledge of the NEW future that was based upon your decision.

  65. Sci-Fi version of ER by raider_red · · Score: 1

    Wasn't there a Sci-fi version of ER a few years back? (I'm thinking '92-'95 here) It only had about a six episode run, and I think they ran through Dr. McCoys entire run of bad situations in the pilot episode.

    --
    It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
  66. Wait... by yoshi_mon · · Score: 2, Funny

    You mean people under 60 actually watch CBS?

    --

    Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
  67. Here's your answer by lightspawn · · Score: 1

    Is there any chance it will offer a decent treatment of the issues Open Source advocates worry about today?

    No.

    Glad I could help.

    Seriously. Somehow, these issues seem less captivating to the public at large than legal issues based on criminal, medical or moral issues. Go figure.

  68. exactly by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1

    Why does no one consider that the Amish, rather than geeks, will rule the future?

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:exactly by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Why does no one consider that the Amish, rather than geeks, will rule the future?

      Because the Amish cannot own guns.

  69. Media content creators have a single view on I.P. by Performer+Guy · · Score: 1

    All these guys are pro Copyright & strong I.P enforcement. They're in the content business this is part of the problem. Your news & media pipe is controlled by the content creators and of course they want to turn the screws on us all over their government entitlements.

  70. I thought that was decided already. by khasim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those enhancements already violations?

    A better scenario would be.....when fetal manipulation is practiced, does that make the person who was manipulated/enhanced ineligible for sports? Particularly because it was done TO him/her instead of BY him/her.

    Would there be a test for such?

    Would there be a seperate division for enhanced athletes? Would the "pure" athletes lose viewership because of that? Could they sue?

    And that's just chemical/bio enhancement. They're still thinking too small and focusing on individuals.

    1. Re:I thought that was decided already. by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      But they are still eligible for men's competitions, at least that's my understanding. So as you say, there'd have to be a seperate division for enhanced players. And that brings up another idea. Can the athlete sue his parents for making him ineligible to play in normal leauges, if the normal leagues are more popular? Can an athlete sue his parents for NOT enhancing him if the enhanced league is more popular?

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    2. Re:I thought that was decided already. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Enhancements are forbidden. Prosthetics are not. For example, you cannot wear a thimble on your pitching hand (or anywhere else you could use it to scuff the ball), but you CAN wear glued-on fingernails. This is particularly common with players who have a history of splitting their fingernails (Hideo Nomo comes to mind), who do it preventatively, but it is an option available to ALL players. Most of them don't find it particularly useful.

      When does that bionic eye cross the line from prosthesis to enhancement? I think that is where the argument will be waged.

      Mal-2

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    3. Re:I thought that was decided already. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Great - you just gave me the mental picture of Nolan Ryan wearing pink Lee Press-On Nails. Thanks a lot!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  71. The future is about what we are not doing, by coldtone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not what we are doing. The progress we have made over the past 25 years is more about many things becoming easier to do or in some cases obsolete. I mean all Tivo is just an automated VCR. You hardly ever put disks or anything into your computer. Using internet banking just saves a trip to the bank or the mail box. It's now very simple to send messages to anyone anywhere in the world for almost free.

    In 25 years from now it will be much more of the same. Tax preparation may become a thing of the past because computers have it nailed. Gas stations might be completely automated. Typing things into a computer could be fully optional, (But people still will). People will probably live longer. It will cost even more to live in New York. You get the idea.

    I hope that we will have one or maybe even two OMG technologies. (Anti Gravity, Warp Drive, Sentient AI, you get the idea.) But these things tend to only come around once every hundred years. (Fire, Farming, The Wheel, The Gun, The Car, The Light Bulb, The Computer) so it might be asking for a bit much.

  72. Seriously.. by jimmyCarter · · Score: 2, Redundant

    Is there any doubt that EVERY episode will be about cases involving patent law(suits)?

    --

    -- jimmycarter
  73. Future episodes by RoboOp · · Score: 3, Funny

    Divorce: Kitt from Knight Rider divorces life partner Michael for alimony and a monthly oil change. But who gets the fuzzy dice and the beaded seat cover?

    Product Liability: Customer sues when a vegetable becomes mixed into his Soylent Green.

    IP: RIAA sues ancient space faring race for IP infringement (Their eons-old anthem bears a striking resembelance to theme of 'Growing Pains'). Aliens carpet bomb Earth.

    Technowhiz: Geek invents a lawbot the size of a hearing aid that translates between legalese and english. The firm goes bankrupt -the lawyers into the wilderness for the spin-off "Lawyers in the deadzone"

    Murder: Peta activists genetically engineers sentient dog. Dog tells PETA to F-off and insists on his right to eat meat. Activists then kill animal under the defence of 'its just an animal'

    Libel: Snake Pliskin hires firm to sue the guy that publicizes his death.

    --
    "First you get the Linux, then you get the power, THEN you get the women"
  74. What? by cliveholloway · · Score: 1

    Like those "sheets of clear plastic" Tom Had to load up before doing his hand waving voodoo? Great future view of storage technology.

    lol

    cLive ;-)

    --
    -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
    1. Re:What? by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's future DRM of course. Everything is reference-counted.

      To protect intellectual property, no data file can be copied without the original being deleted in the same step. Each digital file is bound to a small bit of plastic which serves both as your license to possess that file, and the transport medium to move it around (with a handy 2cm preview of the file's contents)

      It might seem inconvenient to maintain the sneakernet in the face of so much tech, but it keeps officeworkers performing a minimum amount of exercise...

  75. Wolfram & Hart by rlp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My favorite sci-fi/fantasy series about a law firm is 'Angel'. But it's about an eeeevilllll law firm (is that redundant, or what) called 'Wolfram & Hart'. Apart from that, I'm tired of television's endless stream of doctor / lawyer / cop / reality shows. Probably why I don't watch much TV anymore.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
    1. Re:Wolfram & Hart by rpillala · · Score: 1

      See if you can find some I'll Fly Away episodes to watch. It kind of tanked at the end, but at the beginning it was a great show about a lawyer.

      Ravi
      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
  76. I've Seen the future, and I've left it behind by bfg9000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The future is NOT going to be positive. We have two choices; we can live in the world of either the Jetsons or Blade Runner. We'll either have cool Japanese robot servants or we'll be watching our back for Replicants programmed to act as supersoldier police in a facist military state.

    Look at the trends in American (and world) politics, and tell me we're going to have a shiny happy planet where everyone lives in peace and the law isn't paid for by Microsoft, the Republican party, and the NRA.

    World tension, possibly caused by the Pentagon's supposedly dead (but not really) Operation Northwoods (google it if you care); terrorism and hatred -- and because of this, division, not unity ("you're either for me or against me", says the great Uniter); widening gap between super-rich (our rulers) and super-poor (we the servants); environmental degradation (I didn't care about the environment until I caught a fish with two heads and open sores all over its body -- REALLY. Do you eat Tuna? what's in that can anyway?); the universal use of lying, deceit, and the growing apathy and lack of morals EVERYWHERE; immorality of all kinds, and the violent angry response to it; the growth of propaganda and the belief that the truth does not matter, only winning over an enemy; a US government who CHOOSES to have a second cold war and is positioning things to ensure we will be at war forever; loss of privacy; loss of basic Constitutional rights and freedoms; [insert your own corrupt government story here]

    And don't get me started on reality tv.

    And DEFINITELY don't get me started on KDE versus Gnome, or vi versus emacs.

    If you think about it, the probability is extremely high that we aren't going to have a happy future. Looking at the world around you, the facts are undeniable -- unless you have your head in the sand, or don't give a good goddamn about anything but yourself (in which case you're part of the problem; see above). Can you REALLY look at everything that's going on and think the future is really that bright?

    And before you answer "Yes", you DO know marijuana's illegal, right? You shouldn't smoke and Slashdot at the same time.

    One last thought: the media is NOT an informational tool, but a calming time-wasting distraction to keep you from spending your time researching the real issues that are going to kill you someday. Discuss among yourselves while I fill out my daily Homeland Security reports.

    --

    I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."

    1. Re:I've Seen the future, and I've left it behind by John+Biggabooty · · Score: 1

      I predict that the future will be a lot like Mad Max movies. It will begin several years after we hit peak oil. Maybe we already have hit it with gas at $2.00 per gallon. Read more.

      --
      That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!
    2. Re:I've Seen the future, and I've left it behind by bfg9000 · · Score: 1

      Oh god. I was hoping somebody could prove me wrong or reassure me somehow, not trump my dire predictions with something worse!

      Thinking about it, living the Mad Max movie (Part II of course, the best one) is definitely worse than the Blade Runner thing. Blade Runner at least had civilization, with people going to crap jobs, and police and whatnot to keep a semi-peaceful state. In Mad Max, *everything's* broken down. It's every man for himself. The only difference I can see is that there will undoubtedly be the superrich around for a while, with their own private armies, and all the best lifesaving nanotech DNA advances bottled up in their military bases converted into homes. Before the rest of us monkeys break in there in swarms of 50, and kill them all for their goods, and for all the windows crashes they made us suff-- oh, sorry. Didn't mean to give away too much of my plans there.

      Kind of a bummer, but thanks for the link. Looks like a WICKED site, I'm furiously reading it right now. Got any more favorites? That one's great.

      --

      I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."

    3. Re:I've Seen the future, and I've left it behind by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > A couple months after Kennedy refused to take part in the Military's plan to force a neverending "war on terrorism", he was dead.

      Ummm.... Northwoods was about making up excuses to go to war with Cuba, not a neverending "war on terror."

  77. Destroyed in the Eugenics Wars by StefanJ · · Score: 1

    SCO went under for the third time and last time in 2021, when the Fifth Kentucky Volunteer Meme Warfare company infiltrated their HQ and smashed the glass jar containing Lyndon Larouche's brain. It was just a matter of time after that.

    Bitter irony: This was just a few days after Linus was killed defending the Godwin Institute's archive vault from a bunch of uplifted coyotes armed with demag bombs. (They all had Windows-based ID chips, but MSFT denies any connection.)

    Stefan

  78. The thing about democracy is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    We aren't all libertarians.

    1. Re:The thing about democracy is... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > We aren't all libertarians.

      Not everyone cares about their freedom, true.

  79. [OT] Minority Report by mdfst13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "(like how can his eyes still be authorized to the top secret area when he is most wanted)"

    This is one of those things that may be hard to believe but is very realistic. The key to it is understanding that the top secret area was not connected to any of the rest of the systems and was essentially hard coded. The reason for this was to keep it from being compromised (compromising the exterior systems does not help compromise the interior systems).

    It would have been very difficult to change that system to keep him from getting in, as it would have involved changing the hard coding. To make it worse, the person who would naturally have been in charge of seeing that that was done was him. Further, his replacement did *not* have authority to go into that area, much less change it.

    This was actually very realistic. Separating the exterior and interior systems is the correct thing to do, but it also means that if one of the limited number of people authorized to change that system (the movie implies three people had access, including him; the precogs do not count, as they wouldn't have access to open the door) is compromised, one must make changes to that system as well as the exterior system. Easy to overlook.

    The part of Minority Report that bothered me was the idea that if they couldn't send the people to jail, the system would fall apart. Who cares if they go to jail if they don't murder anyone? Particularly with the crimes of passion, like the guy with the scissors. The issue was subtly different in the short story, which I remember as being more realistic.

    They also don't explain how they were going to expand the system with only three precogs with limited range.

    1. Re:[OT] Minority Report by PantsWearer · · Score: 1
      My impression of the whole idea was that somebody dropped the ball. I don't even what to think of the number of former employees that still have access to systems at their former employers.

      The pursuit happened so fast that a little human error could definitely have worked its way into the system.

      --
      Be glad life is unfair, otherwise we'd deserve all this.
  80. I want Robot Law by angryelephant · · Score: 4, Funny

    Something along the lines of the robots from Futurama trying to hold legal proceedings. Imagine a tense courtroom full of judgebots, jury bots, shady criminal defense bots, idealistic district attroney bots, a comical oafish bailiff bot. Robot Judge: Before us stands the accused Bender. You stand on trial for five counts of stealing gin from orphans, 3 counts of vehicular petty larceny involving heavy construction equipment and 1 count of jay walking. How do you plea? Bender: Bite my shiny metal a$$ Robot Judge: I sentence you to 100 years gas mining on the sun. Bender: aww crap

  81. Bah, bring back "Beyond 2000" by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

    on Discovery. I saw a flying robot controlled car on a show in 1997 and I want it now, dammit.

  82. Boring to more than the general public by spideyct · · Score: 1

    Consider "Revolution OS". I'm a geek, and I really like documentaries, so you'd think I would love a movie like that. I guess I can't really blame the subject matter - it had the potential to be interesting - but the execution was horrible. It didn't explain enough to the "outsider", and it didn't really teach anything new to anyone vaguely familiar with the history of Linux and OSI. It just came across as a yearbook to let you place faces with the names you already know.

  83. Spoiler Warning!!! by serutan · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm from the future. Century City was cancelled after 3 episodes, resurrected in 2005 after a fan email campaign, then cancelled again after the campaign proved to be the work of a lone haxx04 named dl3374, whose brain as of 2047 was still serving a 200,000-hour sentence as the CPU of the Volograd sewage treatment facility.

    Television ceased to be a commercial medium after the Copyright Wars of 2019, when the Distributed Fiction Experiment proved that all copyrighted material could be randomly generated.

  84. The Bronze Age sucked too by rolofft · · Score: 1

    >"...other than personal computers and the Internet..."

    I suppose that, other than smelting and metalworking, the Bronze Age wasn't that remarkable. Let me guess, you're waiting for flying cars and housemaid robots? Golly Gee Willikers, if you've been bored by the progress in the last quarter century, you've been playing at Rip Van Winkle!

    Today, I access vast swaths of human knowledge from my living room (Project Gutenberg, Wikipedia, Slashdot, The Onion) on a machine running three billion operations per second that only cost me a few weeks pay. My car has airbags and ABS, it rarely breaks down, and has more electronics than you can shake a stick at, and is still cheaper than a car from the '70s.

    Apart from everyday stuff, you've apparently missed out on amorphous metal, nanocoatings, depolymerization, the nuclear battery, DDR RAM, hyperthreading, steel minimills, not to mention all the advances in medicine and agriculture.

    What could you do on the Net in '76? Could you search Google, shop Amazon, or play XBox Live? Do you need zeplins that moor atop the Empire State Building and biplanes with laser guns to feel like you're living in the future? The future is a gyp unless it enfolds by the stale plan of antediluvian futurists? I'd look to Century City before the works of Jules Vern or Ray Bradbury to see what quantum computing, biotech, and nanotech may have in store.

    --

    "Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"

    1. Re:The Bronze Age sucked too by kfg · · Score: 2, Funny

      . . .biplanes with laser guns. . .

      Sharks. Sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads would be nice.

      KFG

  85. Ahh, another show do zone out on.... by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

    Few care about rights they should have, and care more about rights they shouldn't have or don't need.

    Product of consumerism? Everyone eats food for taste and not for content and buys cloths for fashon not function. This leads people to poison themselves and wear clothing that lasts at most a year. Only makes sense that they'd care more about the right for a high school jock to use sterioids or the right to abortion rather than the right to discuss those topics.

    He're's to 2 years of not watching television or going to movies, and another 20 free of it if I have my life my way.

  86. My Idea for a Sci-Fi show about lawyers... by rhild · · Score: 2, Funny

    Alien McBeal

  87. "Things are going to get worse and worse by voodoo1man · · Score: 1

    and never get any better again." -- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

    --

    In the great CONS chain of life, you can either be the CAR or be in the CDR.

  88. Re:Bright Future? by jnicholson · · Score: 1

    That Thomas Butler thing would make a good movie, since there's a lot of interest in law shows right now. It's got all the ingredients - the naive but brilliant scientist, wrongfully accused by the vengeful woman who is his superior, hounded by the feds. The ending's no good though. It'd have to be changed. Justice should prevail! No anti-establishment stories in today's climate!

    --
    "Do not drill any holes in your cat - it will not like it."
    -- Nick Davies
  89. The Patriot Act by Torodung · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see a fictional treatment of real developments in law today. Of course, if the producers actually did this, they would be carted off to Guantanamo without charge, trial or council. After all, "liberal leaning Hollywood producer" and "enemy combatant" are basically synonymous.

  90. ANOTHER law show? by Simonetta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually this will probably be the only show to deal with today's most important legal issues.

    The 'future' setting in television shows is always just a plot device to handle controversial modern issues without getting shot down by the network censors (the 'standards and practices' department).

    Television in the USA is always a fine line between pissing off the commercial sponsers and attracting viewers. The material must be 'hot' enough to attact viewers from cable and internet but not to 'hot' to invoke the possiblility that the commercial sponsor will flip out.

    However today since the media corporations own so much of the rest of the economy (or, more precisely, the media corporations are owned by giant conglamerates who own large chucks of the economy), it is more important not to piss off anyone in the government.

    Television is stupid because there are very few types of progamming that meet those exact requirements, and all the possible plots and scenarios were already developed and aired twenty years ago.

    Television would probably have to go off the air anyway by December 2006 without government decree. They simply have run out of things to show.

    1. Re:ANOTHER law show? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I missed the premiere, does anyone have a torrent link where I can download it? With / without commercials?

      Hint: plotline relevant to today's important legal issues

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:ANOTHER law show? by Merkuri22 · · Score: 1

      Actually this will probably be the only show to deal with today's most important legal issues.

      I agree. This sort of thing is what science fiction is REALLY for. I mean, lightsabers and timetravel and spaceships are all cool, but "real" scifi -- the kind of scifi that they'll be reading in schools years from now (like 1984 or Brave New World) -- deals with stuff that nobody wants to talk about because it's so controvertial. I don't have high hopes for this show, but I think it has a chance if it keeps bringing up issues about technologies that either are here or will soon be here. I like television shows that spark debates between the viewers, and this one looks like it has good potential. I just hope they come up with enough "new" issues that it doesn't become boring or that it doesn't degrade into a soap opera too soon (because that's what happens to all shows eventually except for unusual examples).

    3. Re:ANOTHER law show? by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

      Another way to look at it is, SciFi allows us to take issues to the "Logical Extreme". It's not inconcievable that a decision that may appear unimportant or irrelevant now may (say, 20-30 years down the road) appear to be quite important and relevant.

      It's very easy to say that telephones were a quaint amusement for rich people a hundred years ago. But today, with a good chunk of the population of the world available for contact anywhere, anytime, within a few seconds -- how amazing is that? How must our society appear to a spectator who just witnessed Bell's advention in action for the first time? What would they think of telemarketers, pollsters, pranksters or instant messaging? How might lawmakers perceive what rules should govern such a system, when their idea of "fast communication" required pen and paper, or access to a telegraph station?

    4. Re: ANOTHER law show? by Tired_Blood · · Score: 1

      The 'future' setting in television shows is always just a plot device to handle controversial modern issues without getting shot down by the network censors (the 'standards and practices' department).
      Kinda like how M*A*S*H aired during Vietnam while the show was set during Korea.

      Television would probably have to go off the air anyway by December 2006 without government decree. They simply have run out of things to show.
      I disagree. pron seems to be doing well, and the basic concept is over 100 years old. And where did Dec06 come from?

      --
      This is not my sig.
    5. Re: ANOTHER law show? by Simonetta · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more Science Fiction TV shows like the original Star Trek, which dealt indirectly with 1960's issues that few other shows would touch.

      The M.A.S.H. TV show aired primarily in the 1970's after the Vietnam war was over. The original movie was released in 1970. It was much tougher than the TV show and did relate to the Vietnam war, even though it was set in the Korean War. It was cheaper and politically easier to set the movie in the Korean war. Cheaper because the California countryside looked much more like Korea than tropical VietNam, and easier because the studio could claim to be making a historical war movie instead of a contemporary anti-war movie.

    6. Re:ANOTHER law show? by PantsWearer · · Score: 1
      Television is stupid because there are very few types of progamming that meet those exact requirements, and all the possible plots and scenarios were already developed and aired twenty years ago.

      I think you'll find that all possible plots and scenarios were well and truly covered prior to the invention of television. Oh, and radio. And the printing press. And probably writing, but we don't have records that go back that far.

      Considering all this, the fact that plots are rehashing old ideas is nothing new and probably has been going on for as long as human beings could tell stories. Heck, "oral tradition" basically involves telling stories over and over again to be remembered from generation to generation. And they not only were the same plots, they were the same stories!

      --
      Be glad life is unfair, otherwise we'd deserve all this.
    7. Re:ANOTHER law show? by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 1

      The 'future' setting in television shows is always just a plot device to handle controversial modern issues without getting shot down by the network censors (the 'standards and practices' department).

      Thus, Star Trek TOS, perhaps TNG and DSN, but hardly Voyager or Enterprise. Hmmm...the shows that have a three letter abbreviation are good...the shows that don't suck...very interesting.

      They simply have run out of things to show.

      I am looking forward to Survivor: All Stars All Stars, thank you very much.

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
  91. Guh Save Us... by Genda · · Score: 1

    I can see it now...

    A run-amock AI leveled Little Rock early this morning (2025.6.03.03:24:52.23452345) by overloading a fusion plant in Heber Springs on the shores of Greers Ferry Lake. Arkansas is devastated by plasma fires and fallout, and rednecks wake to discover they now really have red necks!!! The AI was sequestered, then brought before a legal computation within the minute. The prosecutor (running on a beowulf cluster) made terse opening arguements making it clear that permanent storage was the least that needed to be done, and that the jury should seriously consider deletion. The defense software (running on a Windows 2,000,000,000,000 platform) made a wonderful opening arguement shortly before catching a virus and exploding in the courtroom before terrified jurors. The trial, one of the longest in recent history finished in just over 325.542 nanoseconds leaving an emotionally drained audience as the AI was slurped off of it's server and deposited in a scummy little desktop to serve it's sentence. In the end the jury sentenced the AI to spend the rest of eternity in a PC, watching reruns of Fear Factor 2020... a gruesome end to a gruesome act.

    Who wants to bet that my plot is at least an order of magnitude more entertaining than the sorry excuse for video scan rot that will be actually be served tonight...

    Genda

  92. CBS says it all by 1iar_parad0x · · Score: 1

    I stopped reading after I saw:

    CBS will be airing...

    --
    What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
  93. How could ANYONE ignore patents and SCO??? by OnanTheBarbarian · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, sure. What a schmuck this Zuckerman fellow must be.

    What kind of low-grade moron doesn't know that the SCO lawsuit and an overly liberal regime of granting software patents is the direct pathway to a horrifying, Blade-Runner-style future where gangs of midgets tear the fittings off your police aircar given half a chance?

    I think it's very, very important for any show like this to offer detailed depictions of OSS-type issues. These issues should arise every other show at the very least, and possibly feature verbatim quotes of essays by Eric Raymond and Richard Stallman. A major character might take time out from the courtroom scenes, sex and scandal and face the camera and talk for about 10 minutes about the difference between 'free as in speech' and 'free as in beer'.

  94. Re:Bright Future? by glitch23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The last war in the US we had was around 1863. What war are you talking about?

    --
    this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
  95. Just watched it by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    I thought it was pretty good- decent acting, plausible plots. In this episode a man wants to grow a clone of his son (illegal in the future US) to harvest the liver(?) to save his son's life. The other case involves a boy band from the '90s who has used youth treatments for 40 years so they look 20ish while they are all about 70. Plus some internal office squabbling about a genetically modified lawyer.

    Seems like a standard lawyer show, but with technological twists in the plot. If they can keep up with new ideas it may play for a while, but I can see that falling by the wayside in a bout a season, leaving Just Another Lawyer Show.

    As for Open Source issues, none this episode. I also don't know what kind of plots they could wrap around Open Source. Stealing GPL code for a proprietary system, open source insurance? Don't know how much drama could come from that.

    I'll give this episode a solid B.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    1. Re:Just watched it by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

      I saw the re-run of this last night...

      Why didn't the father donate 1/2 of his liver instead of making (yet another) clone??
      (father was twin of his "son")

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
  96. Century City focuses on biotechnology by mrkurt · · Score: 1

    It seems to me the focus of the story line on Century City is issues that will emerge with the advent of the age of biotechnology and genetics. (You can stop reading if you're on the west coast and don't want to spoil your viewing experience)Tonight's episode involved the issue of "harvesting" cells to use for organ transplants, and the use of "age-defying" drugs to make one look younger. Issues of information technology didn't even register here-- although I found the scene where the technician "punctures" the plasma image of the prosecutor in the "virutal hearing" when it puffed up to be amusing-- must be a glitch of some kind. :) I also wanted to see what they imagined IT in the law office of the future to be like-- everything is transparent monitors and hologram images-- who knows, that just might be around the corner. Ioan Gruffudd (Yo-wan Griffith to you non-Welsh speakers) gave a credible performance as idealistic lawyer Markus Gold. I wanna see the next episode before deciding if this series will fly-- it depends on the writing.

    --
    Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
    1. Re:Century City focuses on biotechnology by mpn14tech · · Score: 1

      The governments case should have been, what is a guy that is unable to get laid doing making clones of himself that will probably be just as unable to get laid as himself.

  97. DOH by efuseekay · · Score: 1

    They are all soap operas :

    Star Trek : Space Soap Opera in Skimpy Leotards
    Babylon 5 : Space Soap Opera with Bad Hardo
    Millenieum : Soap Opera overdosed with sedatives
    Space Above and Beyond : Vietnam in Space Opera Setting

    --
    Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    1. Re:DOH by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Babylon 5 : Space Soap Opera with Bad Hardo

      No sure if you left out an 'i' or an 'n' in that.

  98. What is the deal with Firefly fanatics? by glorf · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but a firefight between laser pistols and lever action rifles? And the rifles win?! Give me a break!

    Everyone seems to think Firefly was so damn original. A space ship captain/thief with a heart of gold in trouble with the big bad crime boss? Can you say "Han Solo"? I knew you could. How about "child with frightening mental abilities as a result of experiments". Firestarter? Ender's Shadow? This Alien Shore? And the psycho kid's older brother is basically a male version of Dr. Quinn Medicine woman, frontier doctor/moral compass.

    I recognize that it is very hard to come up with original characters. The body of existing works covers so many, and if you believe people like Jospeh Campbell and Syd Field, there are certains things you have to do to make a story work. But when you take the characters above, mix in "Holy man who has lost his way", "Shy young girl with huge crush on hero", "Tough as nails female fighter" it all just turns into a big mess. Way too many viewpoints to cycle through in an hour.

    1. Re:What is the deal with Firefly fanatics? by cardshark2001 · · Score: 1
      A space ship captain/thief with a heart of gold in trouble with the big bad crime boss? Can you say "Han Solo"? I knew you could.

      Was Han a thief? No! In your face! Hahahahahah!

      Just kidding. I liked it for all the little science touches that they didn't bother to explain. Something in space explodes and there is no sound. They didn't feel the need to have a dumb character say "Hey, how come no boom?". They just did it. The space saving toilet that folded into the wall.... the shepherd buys his way onto the ship with fresh fruit... the captain pushes the villian off course so he couldn't reach his ship... the companion added respectability to the outlaw ship... I could go on and on.

      Any of that original? Probably not. For tv, however, it was pretty damn good. Plus you had Joss Whedon's writing which was as witty and funny as ever he was. It was a beautiful, wonderful show.

      --
      WWJD? JWRTFA!
  99. I liked it by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    I was driving home today, thinking about DRM/Trusted Computing, etc, and scaring myself. Then, I see this show, and think great! What a great way to get people educated on technical issues!

    I watched the pilot, and I would love it if I liked legal dramas. It had the typical relationship stuff, typical arguing in court stuff, and the politics stuff. It's all there. The show did not feature any quirky anorexic single women looking to get hitched, so I think the show is meant to be taken seriously.

    Unfortunately, all the "futuristic" issues were Biotech: general cloning, cloning of embryos for parts, a fountain of youth pill (you look young, but still age), and a genetically enhanced lawyer who hid herself so wouldn't grow up shunned (shades of x-men, very very light shades though).

    They really glossed-over the everyday technology issues: Doors open and close automatically, everything is pretty and clean, noone is fat, etc. They didn't even touch on computers, or cell phones, or integration of technology with life. I don't think DRM is going to appear on there at all.

    Instead of complaining that the show is YALD (Yet Another Legal Drama), has anyone considered the possibility that there are clueful writers, and that Slashdot geeks could have a voice over the air? Wishful thinking, I know, but since this show will probably appeal to typical TV-watchers is just a plus really.

  100. Something that will never happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The TV show I want is a sitcom based on the Bastard Operator From Hell.

  101. Can you say... by mpn14tech · · Score: 1

    LA Law 2030

  102. A show based on future Internet? Or doctors? by Dukeofshadows · · Score: 1

    Why not have a show based on the first generation of Martix-style internet users? People who literally "plug and play" and what happens to those caught on the outside. Maybe from the standpoint of a paralyzed/disabled accident victim who has no other way to interact with the world.

    Or since we're dealing with so many ethical issues in medicine, why not a show about a future ER? Maybe one on an asteroid mining facility where it's the lawlessness of the Wild West meeting the corporate overworking and unethical standards of Red Faction?

    Just some thoughts...

    --
    As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
  103. Re:A show based on future Internet? Or doctors? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

    A law firm show might get a chance to visit all of those issues. One week a future medical malpractice case takes us to visit a new ER, another week they can deal with corperate dispute...

  104. Interesting. by Dolemite_the_Wiz · · Score: 1

    So this is where all the out of work 'Star Trek' episode writers went to.

    Dolemite
    _____________________

    --
    Save the World! Use a Quote!
  105. Sidebar. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    They simply have run out of things to show

    That's just you showing your age. My parents said the same things about 8 years ago. They constantly say that "this show is just like this other show" and blah blah blah.

    Well guess what, I wasn't around 20 years ago. So it's new to me (to borrow a line from NBC). We'll get tired of it, and we'll just end up watching the Price is Right and Wheel of Fortune for kicks.

    And our children will relive all the classic TV tales and themes without having to bother us to recount them or break out our AVIs.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  106. The end products may not have changed... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    but how they are MADE has vastly been overhauled. You rarely see an engineer with a slide rule anymore. Cars are crashed millions of times virtually before they ever are put on a track. You can send a package halfway across the world for much less than you could 25 years ago.

    Business processes have seen the greatest changes in the last 25 years. (All the outsourcing should be a sign that this has been successful; business prcoesses have become fluid and more efficient, although some people would debate on calling it "success")

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:The end products may not have changed... by kfg · · Score: 1

      You rarely see an engineer with a slide rule anymore.

      Although we still exist. ...reminding you that the first place you saw Capitalization used for Emphasis was a Milner work.

      and the first place i saw a complete lack of it was in an e.e. cummings work.

      KFG

  107. Show tried to do too much (spoilers) by btempleton · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Interesting idea with lots of potential but poorly executed. The show tried to do way too much. Instead of just doing the basic clone-importing case which they could have made good, they need to throw in a long series of surprises, plans to harvest organs, that the boy is already a clone and so on. It was too much to put in one show, especially with two cases to do.

    Can't say I cared much for the overacting or dramatics either.

    --
    Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
  108. It's A Hector Elizondo Show!!!! by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


    How can we lose?

    Be interesting to see if nanotech shows up on it - or if the "genetically engineered babe" lawyer gets to show HOW she was genetically engineered - and what the benefits were in her case - or for her boyfriends.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  109. Here is a likely to be more accurate show... by Simon · · Score: 1
    The After Now

    It is a science fiction (cyperpunkish?) radio play set in a rather bleak future. It covers issues about copyright, corporations etc, and is likely to be a lot more interesting and thought provoking than some show about an unlikey feel-good-shiny-robots-and-flying-cars future.

    --
    Simon

  110. More of the same to come by CleverNickedName · · Score: 1

    Expect plenty more shows set in a bright and shiny future. Propaganda sucks, but at least it's predictable.

    --


    Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
  111. Drugs by Detritus · · Score: 1

    What if he needs steroids to treat a medical condition? There are a lot of people who take steroids for legitimate medical reasons.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    1. Re:Drugs by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > What if he needs steroids to treat a medical condition?

      Most medical conditions that require steroids would disqualify you from playing professional sports to begin with.

  112. See, the producers got a few details wrong. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    They appear to assume that America won't be an endless terrain of charred debris sitting lonely beneath a red sky while the cold wind blows. . .

    Frankly, even Blade Runner is optimistic at this point.

    Gotta ask. . . Were there any people of Middle Eastern, Asian or African descent in the pilot?


    -FL

  113. Changes since 1979 by mec · · Score: 1

    (1) Open source software. How much was available in 1979? Could you run a small business on it?
    (2) Cell phones, obviously.
    (3) Digital music, digital photographs, and the tools so that nearly anyone can make more copies of their own or other people's work.
    (4) Overnight package delivery.
    (5) E-mail, fax, and cheap long distance phones.

    At this point, someone pipes up and says that a few elite people in 1979 had limited access to primitive versions of these things (such as e-mail). There's a big difference between Eric Allman and Vint Cerf having e-mail connectivity and 100,000,000 people having routine, cheap e-mail connectivity. In other words, you have to use the same criteria for 1979 and 2004.

  114. If I could've seen myself... by quantaq · · Score: 1

    ...25 *seconds* in the future, I would've seen myself turning this show off. That's all I gave it to convince me, but it really took less time than that to realize this show won't be on for long.

  115. Re:Cybernetic Estoppel! (OT) by ozric99 · · Score: 1

    If I had mod points you'd get them all. That was the funniest thing I've read on slashdot in weeks!

  116. Saw the show last night... by HeyBob! · · Score: 1

    Worst episode ever.

  117. One thing I always wondered... by Merkuri22 · · Score: 1

    Have any other Slashdotters ever tried to read a transparancy when it's not on the overhead or sitting on top of a white piece of paper? It's hard, isn't it? Basically impossible, huh?

    Then why on earth is the paper of the future and all the monitors made of transparent plastic???

  118. 2004 surprises in 1979 by peter303 · · Score: 1

    My self of 25 years ago would have been surprised by:

    *The end of the Soviet Union as the US's significant enemy.

    *A movie about Jesus would have been a runaway hit.

    *People would have driving mini-tanks (SUVs) and one hours worth of the mediam US wage could buy five gallons of gasoline. 1979 was the worst of energy crises of a decade of them. Everyone was predicting $100 / bbl oil, subcompacts. An hours worth of median wage could only buy two gallons of gasoline.

    *Gay marriage would be the big social topic. Gays at that time were just a part of the larger sexual liberation movement. The hippee communes were just winding down. There was a controversial social consitutional admendment however: The liberals were pushing the Equal Rights Admendment for women. It only got about 34 of the 38 necessary state ratifications, then stalled. A marriage admendment would probably get just as far.

    *People could copy music and movies electronically practically free.

    *The emergence of political conservatism and the republican party. The country was coming off of two lame presidents of each party: Nixon and Carter. Reagan was elected because of his militarism after we wimped out in Iran.

    What were not surprises:

    *The dominance of MicroSoft. The 60s and 70s had AT&T and IBM as the evil empire. MicroSoft was merely a passing of hats.

    *The InterNet. My univerisites Standrd and MIT were fairly wired up already. Email and file exchanges were common.

    *F/X movies. Star Wars I had rewritten that book a few years earlier.

    *Open source. AT&T UNIX had been around for a decade. The source code was floating around universities for nearly free. Also, lots of people were hacking LISP freeware in the A.I. labs.

  119. Cast by mrkurt · · Score: 1

    Were there any people of Middle Eastern, Asian or African descent in the pilot?

    Hannah Crane (Antwone Fisher) plays the partner-in-charge of the firm. An Asian actor, whose name I know not, played the U.S. Attorney opposing Markus Gold.

    --
    Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
  120. "It's a bright future" by escallywag · · Score: 1
    I guess "bright future" is rather subjective...

    First of all, there are still lawyers, that is utterly pessimistic...

    Their "bright future" is based on maintaining the status quo for another 1/4 of a century. Besides technological and medical advances, nothing has fundamentally changed in the US, that is utterly optimistic...

    Noone is wearing stars & stripes armbands. Where are the obligatory Ministry of Homeland Security surveillance pods and the "this news(TM) broadcast brought to you by the Ministry(TM) of Truth(TM)" disclaimers ? Not very realistic if you ask me...

  121. Not Blade Runner Indeed by Flave · · Score: 1

    This is not a 'Blade Runner'

    Wasted an hour of my life last night watching this (ok, 3/4 hour -- I couldn't stand to watch any longer) and you better effing believe this is not Blade Runner. It stuns me beyond belief that they would try to distance themselves from a truly intelligent scifi movie when all they have to offer is this steaming pile of crap.

  122. Batmanuel! by Halloween+Jack · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else notice that one of the lawyers has a secret identity?

    --
    I looked into the abyss, and the abyss looked into me--and we both winked.
  123. Re:As if by hesiod · · Score: 1

    > As if there are still going to be bald men 25 years from now, let alone 400 years.

    Well, if we descended from hairy apes, I think evolution would be creating MORE baldness, although 25 years would not make any difference.

  124. Re:Well (Firefly NitPick) by Macdude · · Score: 1

    There was a huge story arc that was slowly being revealed (two by two, the men in blue).

    "Two by two. Hands of blue"

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
  125. Concept OK but the show is weak by ncstockguy · · Score: 1

    The idea of a show set in the near future is pretty cool and interesting, but this one is just junk. Like we need another touchy-feely panting beween the desks law show....

  126. My thoughts... by cr0sh · · Score: 1
    I watched it - and while I don't think I wasted my time (it wasn't that bad of a show), I don't think it will last more than a season - maybe two (if it is *very* lucky).

    What many of you /.'ers here seem to be missing is that the world protrayed in CC isn't all "bright and shiny" - it is today's world, set only a few years in the future. The show revealed what we should already know: in the future, people will be petty, people will be greedy, and lawyers will still be making tons of money. Oh, and the abortion debate will still be going on (I would even interject something here about religion, but not enough was revealed in the show, yet).

    I got a feeling from the show that in the world of CC, everything looks OK - but in reality, it isn't - look a little closer (ie, be more than a prole or a sheep) - and you will see the dystopia - a dystopia that is around us today.

    Today, look at how our rights and the way we live are being eroded, seemingly on a day-by-day basis. Maybe it isn't much different from the past, maybe we just have more information sources 24/7 - I don't know - still, it seems to me like the United States is going to hell in a handbasket - and everyone is smiling.

    Everyone is buying shiny houses, shiny cars, shiny clothes - and refusing to see the dystopia unfolding right before their eyes.

    In our current world, on the surface - it looks all fine and dandy - shiny. But in reality, we are still arguing and prosecuting (and persecuting) thousands, if not millions, of people simply because of viewpoints they hold, or because of who they are biologically. Furthermore, many of us are each saying "F the environment", collectively supporting bad practices instead of embracing renewable methods.

    Is today not Century City - just 25-26 years in the "past"? Arguing that it isn't simply exhibits blatent willfulness to ignore what is right in front of one's face...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  127. All the great empires have fallen. by aleb · · Score: 1

    The executive producer, Ed Zuckerman, had this to say about the future state of the law in America: 'Our future is a positive future. We assume that things are basically going to get better, progress will continue,' Zuckerman says.

    All the great empires have fallen.
    Do you believe the history will not repeat itself? I doubt.

  128. Not Paranoia if its really true.. by IronBlade · · Score: 1

    Ok, I'll bite, Mr Troll..

    Did you actually read any of the material the site uses as reference?
    There's a lot of material out there about the coming oil crisis.
    Try a search in Google for "Peak Oil" and read some of the other sites.
    Hmm.. maybe a geologist from Princeton might be more convincing than the site I linked to?
    Or how about CNN???

    --
    Important info:
    http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
    http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
    http://www.peakoil.net