The Fall Geek TV Lineup

An anonymous reader writes "Wired has an article looking at this Fall's bumper crop of geek TV. McG, who directed the pilot for the show Chuck, opines that the appearance of nerd culture on network television is a long-overdue reflection of real life. From the article: 'Hollywood, he said, is playing catch-up with IT culture. "The classic shape of the computer geek is over when Bill Gates became the (richest), most aspirational, coolest guy in the world," he said. "He is the original thick-glasses, pocket-protector guy. Now who doesn't want to be like Bill Gates?"' They have reviews of the lengthy list of shows, for clues as to what to watch and what to miss."

Comments

I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Ossifer]

I just want his money.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[the_womble]

I agree.

Most people (apart from the saintly) want money! However, most people have other aspirations as well.

The problem with the article is that is assumes that Bill Gates is the richest man in the world, therefore he represents other aspirations. Other aspirations do not count.

How pathetic to ONLY aspire to money. Why not aspire to be Nelson Mandela or Mother Teresa or ....

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[lwriemen]

Who are you to judge what is a better aspiration?

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

I want money AND power...and a nice bacon sandwich would be nice. No, I've got some coffee, thanks.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[mollymoo]

Who are you to question who he is to judge what is a better aspiration?

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[DoofusOfDeath]

Most people (apart from the saintly) want money!

Yeah, but I think for those people who have thought about it carefully, they only want money in moderation.

It's nice to be able to afford only doing work you find meaningful, and not having to worry about affording food, health care, etc. But I've also heard that most lottery winners end up unhappy (and often broke).

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[will_die]

Ok,
I aspire to beable to give away 100 million a year; all the money I make off the interest in my checkbook savings account.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[edittard]

I'm having trouble judging whether aspirational (as used in TFA) is a word, and if so, whether it makes any sense in that context.

Take inspirational. That means you inspire other people. But you can't aspire other people, so how can you be aspirational? It's unlogical.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[marcello_dl]

> Most people (apart from the saintly) want money!

Nope, people want what they are told money can buy. It's the system at power that makes sure that the only way you can achieve your dreams is through money, and it did it in two ways. Hollywood on one side, communism on the other (and we fall for the non sequitur that the only alternative to the system at power is a system with no property at all)

In the process they stripped money of its core value: being something that makes wealth easily kept and converted. Inflation makes sure you have to trot all your life to accumulate paper. Or, you choose to be the kapo of the system, and accumulate more wealth subjugating your peers. The lucky ones who are good and smart enough to accumulate wealth in a honest way are shrinking.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant illogical Captain Corrects-a-lot!

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Scaba]

You've probably mostly heard that from lottery losers. Though...I'd imagine someone who counts on the extremely unlikely combination of some bouncing plastic balls as their key to financial freedom already is unhappy because they have no goals or purpose in life, and is also rather bad at handling finances.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[jahudabudy]

I recently read an article about a self-made millionaire, who had earned somewhere around $15 million with his concrete business, that cleared around $100 million winning the lottery. He said in the article that with that kind of money and publicity, he went from a wealthy private individual to a public figure. The spotlight on his personal life destroyed his marriage, an ugly kidnapping attempt drove his daughter away from him, and some other bad things happened that were tangentially related to the lottery win. This of course was all his side, but I can easily imagine that life actually becomes much MORE complicated with ridiculous sums of money.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Otter]

I'm not sure why you think Gates has ever been motivated primarily by money. Dropping out of Harvard to sell software to a market of maybe 75 people isn't something you do to make money. Gates loves software, as much if not more than any rabid Lunix fanboy does.

Incidentally, how many of you people have ever seen a "pocket protector" or even know why they used to be used? Can't this ludicrously anachronistic trope be dropped at some point?

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[AvitarX]

But I've also heard that most lottery winners end up unhappy (and often broke).

You probably heard that most lottery winners end up feeling the same as they did before hand. After a major life-altering event for the good or the bad people will generally settle to the same level of happiness within 6 months to a year. Those that are generally happy with there life will generally maintain that happiness even if getting paralyzed in a car accident, and those who are miserable will maintain misery even after winning the lotto.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[jollyreaper]

How pathetic to ONLY aspire to money. Why not aspire to be Nelson Mandela or Mother Teresa or .... Yeah, but money can buy you those other things you want, like a penis big enough to be mistaken for a third leg. Never mind that there are few women who could accommodate such an appendage, that's not the point. The important thing is you're the one who has it.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[UbuntuDupe]

How pathetic to ONLY aspire to money. Why not aspire to be Nelson Mandela or Mother Teresa or ....

Probably because it's not a good thing to aspire to:

-Oppose condom usage in AIDS-stricken areas
-Take money from despotic regimes and spend only a small portion on its intended purpose
-Run a completely non-transparent operation
-Make your clinic painful to teach people the value of suffering
-Convince people that they should fake miracles in your name

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[brother_b]

The only person I've ever seen wear a pocket protector is my dad, and he's a retired auto mechanic. It made sense for him since he kept small tools in his shirt pocket, and they often were greasy.

He's very non-geek as far as electronics go. He doesn't even know how to operate the microwave. I guess you could consider him a mechanical /engine geek though.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[wonkavader]

Whoa, there, fella. To say "I only want his money" is to eschew his viciousness, his immorality, his absurd competitiveness, and his complete lack of doing anything not in his best interests. To ONLY want his money is to keep on the side of Mother Theresa.

I, definitely, would only want his money.

(Don't bother pointing to the Gates foundation. With as much money as he now has, it hasn't really cost him anything to do what he did, and he waited this long to do it, so that it's not a sacrifice to him at all. I don't see a splendid benefactor, when I see him. I see a man who looks back on his history of nastiness and sees a guy with a long cloak and a farming implement slowly approaching. Nothing to see there, the guys still an jerk.)

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[SIIHP]

"Yeah, but I think for those people who have thought about it carefully, they only want money in moderation."

Yeah, but I think this is what people with no money tell themselves to feel better about it.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Lottery winners receive money beyond their means. The richest they are going to get (in most cases), is directly after the win, since their original income won't match their wealth and won't be able to sustain it. The problem isn't in the lack of moderation, it's just that they can't expect that immoderate supply of money to be sustainable.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[imgod2u]

Actually, according to many economists, accumulation of wealth is a bad thing for any economy. From a standpoint of utility, it makes sense. Economics is not a zero-sum game and the flow of wealth is what entices people to work. The fact that money, as a symbolic means to property, has been stripped of such value actually serves a purpose. It's so people won't horde it for its own sake. Even the richest man will not keep all his money under a mattress and this is a *good* thing. Those rich people will instead invest in stocks which will subsequently fund companies to hire workers to earn salaries.

Now, admittedly, our government tax system has favored those rich instead of those working and has thus, created an imbalance where the rich are disproportionately rich (even more than what you'd get with just strictly capitalist/worker relationships under an ideal market). Charging corporations taxes is a fraud as it does not help the worker, the corporations will simply pass those taxes on to their employees by lowering salaries. Capital gains tax is the biggest scam in existence whereby the people who *own* the corporations get to pay 10-15% tax on their insanely huge earnings through stock.

All of that unfairness aside, the fact that money is being inflated (though the slower the better) and that it is being sought by means of trade (stock market) which subsequently leads to labor (salaries) is what actually makes the world go around. Whether most of that work is actually needed....well, that's a philosophical issue.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[GigG]

"Why not aspire to be Nelson Mandela or Mother Teresa or ...."

Because half of them are dead?

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Lurker2288]

I doubt that anyone really JUST wants money--it's about as close as you can get to a pure means, as opposed to an end. What people really want are security, power, fancy toys, celebrity--all things that go along with sufficient cash. Even to your point: with Bill Gates' bank account, you could do a lot of good.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[elrous0]

a penis big enough to be mistaken for a third leg

Ah, 'tis the dream of every man. "One day," I tell myself, "One day."

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

Guys, I think we just found Christopher Hitchens trolling account...

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Frigga's Ring]

It's off-topic, I know, but while I agree that the UbuntuDupe is a little harsh, but the point is the same: the people you think are saints often have their own dirty little secrets. Nothing is as simple as TV tells us.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Joe Tie.]

Why not aspire to be Nelson Mandela or Mother Teresa or ....

When your main problems come from lack of money, is it that strange that people put that up as their ideal? Money means a lot of things to different people. To one person it might mean a giant bathtub of money, but to a lot of folks it means being able to actually do something for charities that are struggling to survive, to get their family out of bad neighborhoods, to get their kids medical care they can't currently afford. Wanting money and altruism aren't always mutually exclusive. I'm positive Gates has already done far, far, more good for the world than Mother Teresa at least. I'm not fond of the mans products, I wouldn't want his social mannerisms, but his charity has really done some great work.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[doodlebumm]

Who are you to judge what is a better aspiration?

Smarter than you, obviously, lwriemen.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[monkeyboythom]

So the networks think we are all like that movie? The one where all the guys stand up and say, "I am Spartacus!"

No way in hell I'm standing up and saying, "I am Bill Gates." I want to keep my friends.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[aztektum]

I'm guessing the broke one's end up unhappy because they blew it and became broke again.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[bbcisdabomb]

So. . . they don't have a problem with moderation, they just have a problem with spending too much money?

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Yes. The problem is with the moderation of the output, rather than the moderation of the input.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[bhiestand]

But I've also heard that most lottery winners end up unhappy (and often broke). The problem is a problem of moderation. In my eyes, there's nothing wrong with having extra money. The problem is when people know you have extra money and want to pester you about it, or when you're too stupid to manage it properly. Many lottery winners do end up broke or bankrupt because they immediately buy a lot of fancy things and gifts and waste a good portion of their money on crap that costs money to maintain. Expensive cars, big houses with large water/electricity bills, etc. If they wisely invested 3/4 of the money and put another 1/8 in savings, they'd do fine. Unfortunately, most of them waste it. Of course, people who would follow my advice would probably lose a lot of their supposed friends, but I don't see that as a large loss.

This Google Answer about Lottery Winners gives a lot of good information on the subject. In summary, about 1/3 of lottery winners end up bankrupt, and there's conflicting information about happiness. If what's making you unhappy is simply not being able to afford things like sending your kids to school or air conditioning, a financial windfall will probably make you happier.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[kestasjk]

And the biggest problem is that it's a situation that you just can't escape from. The guy is happier with $15 million than with $100 million, but how are you supposed to lose that $85 million? It's not like there are billions of people willing to share his terrible burden.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[jim_redwagon]

I thought I remember seeing pocket proectors being useful in containing ball point pen explosions in one's shirt pocket.

I'm sure many early geeks found them useful to store smokes and matches in too.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[bob_herrick]

Charging corporations taxes is a fraud as it does not help the worker, the corporations will simply pass those taxes on to their employees by lowering salaries. Since employees operate in a market that bids prices based on marginal utility, it is at least as likely that the cost of such taxes gets substantailly paid by those who buy the goods and services (e.g., VAT). Because it is complicated, in all likelihood the costs probably get spread across several groups for the most part - buyers, employees, shareholders, etc., depending on the elasticities.

Capital gains tax is the biggest scam in existence whereby the people who *own* the corporations get to pay 10-15% tax on their insanely huge earnings through stock That would include my 100 year-old mother-in-law and her 'insanely huge' earnings? Or me? My earnings are at best 'distubed,' but what savings I have would earn more in mutual funds than in passbook savings even were the tax rates the same. Most stock is held by individuals or funds of individuals - and are more broadly distributed in practice than just a privileged few. If you have a 401-K or equivalent where you work (1) it probably invests in some form of mutual fund - or has a choice for that, and (2) it would be insane (to use your word) not to contribute at least a token to it. Ditto your IRA. Once you maximize those two, the next investments you probably will consider (other than buying a home and paying for more education) will probably be stocks in some form or another. At that point you may come to appreciate the intricacies of the US Tax Code.

Personally, I don't have much of an issue with earned wealth and working wealth. If you really want an cause, go after inheritance taxes (and tax avoidance schemes).

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[volpe]

Ok, I'll bite. Which of those things were done by Mandela, and which were done by Mother Teresa? And please cite references.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Enigma2175]

According to President Bush, Mandela is dead as well.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[slashdotmsiriv]

"How pathetic to ONLY aspire to money. Why not aspire to be Nelson Mandela or ...."

Because Sadam Hussein killed all the Mandelas ...

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[pla]

How pathetic to ONLY aspire to money.

Agreed! Do a GIS for "Melinda Gates" (in particular, the older pics of her - She hasn't aged all that well, but for a woman in her 40s...) .

Not quite a Kucinich-class MILF, but as they say, "I'd hit it!"

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[lwriemen]

and now a word from the_wombie's yes man.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[doodlebumm]

Well, I'm not sure what your point was, but google found only 4 references to "the_wombie", and I haven't a clue what/who "the_wombie" refers to. So you could be right, or maybe you just proved my point - again.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[lwriemen]

Go to my first posting that you replied to, and click on "Parent" (or just click up from here). Now read the user id after "by". For example, on your posting, "doodlebumm", follows "by".

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[cayenne8]

"How pathetic to ONLY aspire to money. Why not aspire to be Nelson Mandela or Mother Teresa or ...."

'Cause aspiring to be like Mandela or Teresa, will not get you into a cool Ferrari to drive around, nor get you laid by the likes of a Victoria Secrets model.

If you are rich enough, you can have those PLUS do good acts for other people on earth if you so choose. I think most anything is better with money. I'd much rather be miserable and rich, than miserable and broke. But, don't worry....if I'm rich, I'll not be miserable.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[cayenne8]

"Yes. The problem is with the moderation of the output, rather than the moderation of the input."

I don't get it. If you clear over $5 million, just invest it in stable investments. With only 5% a year, that's like $250K a year. What a great salary for doing nothing the rest of your life.

Ok, maybe its me, but, I'm quite happily able to live on a quarter a million a year...buy toys, travel...etc.

I've never understood the fscktards that will that much cash, and somehow blow it??? I guess it shows, that John Q Public really is a pretty stupid person on the whole. Of course, this isn't any big surprise to anyone that has had a job dealing with the general public.

Oh well, if anyone has lots of money that is making their life unhappy...feel free to let me take that burden from your shoulders, I don't mind really......I'll be happy to help you out.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Pie-rate]

Looks like "the_womble" to me. And now a word from Internet retard #763666!

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[loganrapp]

Who are you to question who he is to question who he is to judge what is a better aspiration?

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[lwriemen]

Word!

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Otter]

I thought I remember seeing pocket proectors being useful in containing ball point pen explosions in one's shirt pocket.

Exactly. Fountain pens and early ballpoint pens used to leak; thus pocket protectors. No one uses them anymore because modern pens are wildly unlikely to leak in your pocket.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[mollymoo]

Who are you to question who I am to question that which I wish to question?

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Plaid Phantom]

Well, an 'aspiration' is a desire, a goal. You aspire to achieve your goals. So, I suppose being 'aspiratioinal' would mean that you have goals that you work toward.

As to whether the article used it correctly, well, then I'd actually have to read it.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[vertinox]

Though...I'd imagine someone who counts on the extremely unlikely combination of some bouncing plastic balls as their key to financial freedom already is unhappy because they have no goals or purpose in life, and is also rather bad at handling finances.

Usually, lotto winner have no infrastructure or advisers to handle such a windfall. You know... Accountants, lawyers, financial coaches, and various other people you would generally have if you already had a business.

That is why generally, you see people who start a business and then make millions (or billions) from a windfall (say Youtube and Google) because they are generally familiar with the business process or have competent people to assist them with the transition.

My hunch is that as soon as a lotto winner wins, they generally bombarded phone calls from "financial advisers" who will assist and managing his wealth (which may or may not be in his best interest) or have family members help them out instead of actually doing the right thing with contacting a lawyer and immediately creating a trust fond or LLC to manage their wealth.

Its kind of like that scene from "Office Space" when they are debating what they would do if they ever got a million dollars and one of them goes into a diatribe how they would invest in mutual funds and so on. In truth thats probably the best way to stay rich for the long term.

Personally, if I won the lotto, I'd move to a nice but reasonably priced neighborhood and simply set up my funds to live off interest, keep driving my crappy car, and play video games all day instead of working. However, the temptation might be so overwhelming to buy a $1,000,000 home might be so overwhelming I too might fall victim to buying useless stuff I don't need and be poor within 5 years ago.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[SeaFox]

How pathetic to ONLY aspire to money. Why not aspire to be Nelson Mandela or Mother Teresa or ....

Hugh Hefner!

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[disasm]

Or St. Seraphim of Sarov. I'm reading the life and teaching St. Seraphim right now. He is absolutely amazing! Sam

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Tatarize]

>>Most people (apart from the saintly) want money!

Um, I've met "saintly" people... they want money too. But they swear it will go towards saintly goals.

Oddly, Gates himself is giving the money and funding proper causes that I doubt they could do better, and I'm fairly sure would do far worse.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[AuMatar]

Just make a fallback fund. If I ever get a windfall like that, the first 3 million go into t-bills- that way even if I fuck up and blow the rest of it, I'm set for life just off the principal.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[SlowMovingTarget]

I think the poster meant "aspirational" as in "to aspirate," as in "mouth-breathing."
I could be wrong.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, like all those kids who used to beat me up in high school are now suddenly my friends. I am not really sure what to do. I never had any friends before.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Thank you Internet Retard #1098693. Looks to me that #763666 has seniority, though. And a much cooler UID.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why people shouldn't just show up the day after the lottery to claim their prize. A person should first and foremost visit a financial adviser to decide how to manage the money and then wait a few months before claiming their prize. By that time, the big lottery jackpot will be forgotten and the attention of the general public will be directed elsewhere.

This should allow the winner to receive their money without much fanfare and ensure that they don't blow through it and end up poor again. The key is to remove any stress they'd feel over the money. Public attention and managing it themselves are two good ways to get stressed out.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[genner]

don't worry....if I'm rich, I'll not be miserable

Yeah it's not like rich and famous people ever get depressed and go crazy.......oh yeah.
Well at least the media will be there to record your misery.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[kaizokuace]

Don't forget about aspirations TO ROCK!!!!!!!!!!! *insert badass guitar solo*

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Scaba]

I'd buy 333,333 cups of coffee or a million $1 hookerbots.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[cayenne8]

"Yeah it's not like rich and famous people ever get depressed and go crazy.......oh yeah."

Again...I'd rather be rich, and depressed and crazy, than poor, depressed and crazy.

At least being wealthy, you can afford the best medical to treat it, and afford to have people take care of you.

IMHO...no matter what your situation, it sucks to be poor.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[imgod2u]

That would include my 100 year-old mother-in-law and her 'insanely huge' earnings? Or me? My earnings are at best 'distubed,' but what savings I have would earn more in mutual funds than in passbook savings even were the tax rates the same. Most stock is held by individuals or funds of individuals - and are more broadly distributed in practice than just a privileged few. If you have a 401-K or equivalent where you work (1) it probably invests in some form of mutual fund - or has a choice for that, and (2) it would be insane (to use your word) not to contribute at least a token to it. Ditto your IRA. Once you maximize those two, the next investments you probably will consider (other than buying a home and paying for more education) will probably be stocks in some form or another. At that point you may come to appreciate the intricacies of the US Tax Code.

I do have those and what pittance I get in terms of my IRA/401k is incomparable to the extra tax burden put upon me (upper-middle class high income worker) because those upper ~2% that owns ~60% of the wealth in this country get to pay less taxes on their multi-million dollar stock portfolios than I do on my salary.

The fatal mistake here is assuming that my current tax level is set in stone and that what little benefits I can get from "savings" programs the government generously gives me is all I can have. If capital gains tax were removed, yes, I might lose out by not having as much saved through my 401k and my IRA, but guess what? I wouldn't *need* those as my tax burden would decrease.

Let's say, at my current income tax rate (not even accounting for SS, Medicare, etc.) of 25% (I get deductions but let's call that the base), 8% of my income goes towards a 401k program and 6% goes towards an IRA. Of that 14%, 4% is match by my company in my 401k. So 18% of my salary goes untaxed until I make a withdraw (at which point, it's capital gains, assuming I keep it in there for that long). Let's assume a capital gains tax of 15%. I end up getting 15.3% of my salary (multiplied by percentage yield over however many years) from putting in 18% originally. Without capital gains, I'd end up with 13.5%.

Let's assume that, if the rich were forced to go without capital gains tax as well. Let's say this reduces my tax burden by 5% to 20%. That extra 5% of my income could've gone towards the same investments my IRA/401k went to. Assuming I max my 401k and IRA still the same, I end up with (18 + 5) * 0.80 = 18.4% of my original salary (multiplied by percentage yield). In reality, I suspect my tax burden would be reduced significantly more than 5% and the more it's reduced, the more useless "perks" like an IRA becomes (although not a 401k since there's matching there). That's not even accounting for the decrease of tax burden that eliminating tax on corporations will cause. Yes this cost is distributed to both employees and customers but employees are still among that burden.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[sh3l1]

Lottery winners end up unhappy and often broke because only stupid people buy lottery tickets, only stupid people win and stupid people can't manage their money very well. This is to say that people who win the lottery are very likely to assume that it would be impossible for them to run out of money because they have so much and buy a lot of things.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[bob_herrick]

You should talk to a financial planner. There is a key misunderstanding in your assessment. Not only is the 401K principal tax deferred, but all of the interst and capital gains are too. Having said that, you will be taxed at ordinary income rates once you get out.

Your situation and mine differ - for one thing I am a lot older than you are. My marginal income tax rate (the rate on the last dollar I earn) including US Federal and California State income taxes, but excluding SS and Medicare, is just under 50%. It does not take that much of an income - probably a couple hundred thousand a year - to get to this marginal rate. You might not make that now, but imagine a future in which you do.

I also save more than you do - probably closer to 20% in tax deferred savings alone.

The math is:

I keep 50% (actually less) of 80% of the last dollar of my salary. Of the 20% I save tax deferred, history suggests that I will earn 8% - 9% tax deferred, doubling every 9 years at 8% or 8 years at 9%. If I started at 30 and retired at 62 that is 4 periods of 8, or a factor of around 16 on my initial investment. I probably have a lower tax rate then, too.

You should ask a financial planner for a comparison for your own situation comparing a 401K and plain old after tax savings.

The balance of my savings either throw off interest (5% taxed at 50% unless I buy tax free municipal bonds) or earn dividends or capital gains. Dividends average 1.5% to 2% on the S&P 500, capital gains make up the balance of the 8 - 9%. So I start with half the money, it grows at the same rate, and I get a lower tax rate (if the current rates are not changed), but overall less money. Note that I have a clear preference for equities, given the current tax treatment.

The conclusion is that your 401K is a much better deal than you think it is, and if you really hate it, buy equities instead as long as the tax rate remains low and stop lobbying for changing the capital gains and dividend tax rates!

Finally, I think you are missing something with your 2%/60% statistics. Regardless of whether the 2% is based on wealth or income, you should factor in the distribution of ages. Not many young folks have a lot of income and wealth (Gates having been an exception, as were many of the dotcommers) so in part what you might be seeing is the simple fact that people get wealthier as they age, and the 60% is more broadly distributed than you think. Also, 2% of 350 million is a lot of people. How many of them are heads of households with dependents, and how many dependents are in your 2%?

Now, if you would like to say that all tax shelters should be abolished - including those lucrative 401K's and IRA's, and tax all income equally, that might be fair, but be careful of what you wish. You will be responsible for your own income in retirement, and you would be giving up a powerful tool to attain a degree of retirement comfort that might be hard to replace. You might also be surprised to see your own taxes remain about the same, or if your income is high enough, even go up. You are only taxing income, after all, not the wealth itself.

I remain of the opinion that inheritance taxes that permit nearly unlimited transfer of wealth between generations, are more to blame than the tax rate on dividends and capital gains.

That's not even accounting for the decrease of tax burden that eliminating tax on corporations will cause. Yes this cost is distributed to both employees and customers but employees are still among that burden Last point: I think this is also something that you should run the numbers on. I agree that double taxation of income at the corporate level is not really the right way to do things (but I doubt it has a matieral impact on wages and salaries). However, personal tax rates would, on average, have to increase. I think it is a zero-sum game from the point of view of tax payers.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[eonlabs]

I actually think it could suck pretty hard to be him.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[alta]

Unless you use mind controll, then it's unethical.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[fngl51]

Nonsense. To be aspirational means that you aspirate (presumably your own saliva or other bodily fluid). To be aspirational means you choke on your own spit..

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[wayward_bruce]

Acer aspires.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[marcello_dl]

> Actually, according to many economists, accumulation of wealth is a bad thing for any economy...

Nevermind that reasoning has some lil holes (like working = a good thing, which is not an absolute value, see "otium" in Roman and Greek culture) but stopping the accumulation of wealth could be done without hurting money. Think taxes, limits to property laws, money that expire after some time so it must be put back in the economy.

What is happening now is that an arbitrary accumulation of wealth permitted by fractional reserve and banks lending money to each other is seen as a way to stop accumulation of wealth of the private.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[AP31R0N]

i aspire for the money so i CAN be like Mandela. i can't do much good for the world if i'm sitting at my desk for 8 hours a day. Give me a billion $ and i'll invest it such that i can have a safe/comfortable life and use the rest to help people. Hell, i could do a great deal of good with just a million. All it takes is imagination... and cash. If i had money like Bill, i'd be spending it on charities in the 10s of millions. The interest generated from one billion would change the world in meaningful ways forever.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[nobuddy]

Nah, I'm too nice to aspire to such evil as Mother Theresa. I'd have to settle for a lesser evil, like Jeffrey Dahmer or Hannibal Lecter. http://www.population-security.org/swom-96-09.htm

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[nobuddy]

Agreed. Upon winning a lottery, do nothing drastic for a while. Go on an extended vacation, yes. Buy a new car to replace the 73 pinto that only fires on 2 cylindars and won't go in reverse, yes. Don't move, don't buy vacation property. Nothing. Hand the wad to an investment firm and let them work out a life plan with it. Your resulting income will be very very nice, and will last the rest of your life, and your children's lives. Now, find and buy that dream house in the perfect location... within your new budget.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[imgod2u]

Your situation and mine differ - for one thing I am a lot older than you are. My marginal income tax rate (the rate on the last dollar I earn) including US Federal and California State income taxes, but excluding SS and Medicare, is just under 50%. It does not take that much of an income - probably a couple hundred thousand a year - to get to this marginal rate. You might not make that now, but imagine a future in which you do.

It's even worse for higher-income individuals as I'm aware. So long as your income comes from a salary and you haven't broken into the amount of wealth barrier that allows you to live off of yields from investments.

The conclusion is that your 401K is a much better deal than you think it is, and if you really hate it, buy equities instead as long as the tax rate remains low and stop lobbying for changing the capital gains and dividend tax rates!

That really depends on what your (or rather my) expectation is. Arguably, my current tax rate is lower than the average tax rate I will be paying throughout my working career and the aggregate sum of taxes paid given the current income tax system vs that of a much flatter tax system where capital gains were taxed the same as income (thus decreasing the tax burden on income earners) is much greater. Keep in mind that even though my contributions to my 401k are not taxed at the tax rate at the time of contribution, the amount taxed on the remaining 92% of my salary adds up over 30 years as well and they could've gained the same yield as my 401k.

And as to your suggestion of equities, whether I do that or not does not change the disadvantage I'm at in the current tax system. Why should I not want capital gains tax to be eliminated?

Now, if you would like to say that all tax shelters should be abolished - including those lucrative 401K's and IRA's, and tax all income equally, that might be fair, but be careful of what you wish. You will be responsible for your own income in retirement, and you would be giving up a powerful tool to attain a degree of retirement comfort that might be hard to replace. You might also be surprised to see your own taxes remain about the same, or if your income is high enough, even go up.

I believe my original crude calculation included for the possibility that I will be taxed the full amount for my 401k contributions (meaning the only benefit is from the company matching). I still gain a much higher amount of base investment to put towards retirement assuming the tax burden is relieved and my base tax rate is reduced.

Of course we probably don't want a high tax rate for low-income people as we don't want riots and a revolution, but as far as people beyond the middle-class barrier (let's say 100k+ earners), I see no reason why, no matter how you earn money, you shouldn't pay the same amount of taxes on money you gain.

As far as the broader picture, of how much tax burden, if any, will be relieve from income earners, I'd need numbers for the amount of capital gains that are earned on average in the U.S. Considering that an individual who gains most of their earnings from capital gains probably does not have a job, they'd qualify in the low-income bracket and are taxed ~5% of their profits through capital gains, I'd say that just a selected few hundred or a few thousand would provide billions/year in taxes that are currently not paid. I'd say that reduces the middle class's tax burden quite a bit.

You are only taxing income, after all, not the wealth itself.

If capital gains were taxed at the same rate as equivalent income tax, you'd indeed be indirectly taxing wealth. Unless someone keeps their money under a mattress (and really, how many millionaires do) and consequently losing wealth every year due to inflation, they will be taxed whatever they gain through investments of the wealth they have.

I remain of the opinion that inheritance taxes that permit nearly unlimited transfer of wealth between generations, are more to

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Hyperspite]

..but..but...think of the poor government agency! How will it generate the same amount of attention if it allows the winners to slip out of the spotlight! After all, there's a reason the lottery is called the stupid tax and publicity like that attracts stupid people.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[will_die]

Consider thoses numbers came from this poll http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance and not Fox News you just look even more foolish then your made up numbers indicate.
You are definatly upset about thoses numbers, and should be, but shouldn't you really be upset with main stream democrat sites like huffington report and daily kos where the feeling that president of Iran would be a better leader for the US or the members are upset when US leaders are not killed is talked about and celebrated?
That only 38% of Democrats know for sure that the US President did not help out with 9/11 attacks is just plain sad, but go ahead keep on making up your own "facts" and ignoring reality.

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Chris Tucker]

Yeah. And there are polls that show that 90% of those polled know that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Nice try, Fox News Fan. Anyone with any experience with polling can generate the answers desired by the entity paying for the poll.

"If you knew there were terrorists under your bed with an atomic bomb, would be less likely to be afriad or more likely to be afraid?"

So sod right off, Mr. Lying Sack o'Crap! Ain't no one here buying what you're selling!

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Given the subject matter, wouldn't 'insanely fucking greedy' have been better?

Re:I don't want to be like BIll Gates

[DavidShor]

"Capital gains tax is the biggest scam in existence whereby the people who *own* the corporations get to pay 10-15% tax on their insanely huge earnings through stock."

Be a bit realistic here. A large chunk of wall street has already moved to London, where capital gains tax is 10%. If we equalized taxes, it is rather conceivable that the rest would go too.

Not so much

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bill gates...most aspirational"

Bwahahah!

Not everyone wants to be a scumbag just to be rich.

Re:Not so much

[sqrt(2)]

Yeah! What a fucking bastard!

Also, vaguely related to TV shows starting soon, House MD season premiere tomorrow. Who's excited? I know I am!

Re:Not so much

[Icarus1919]

Really? Sweeeeeet.

Re:Not so much

[Klaus_1250]

Lucky bastards, they haven't even finished in the previous season here (Netherlands). Guess I'll be firing up BitTorrent tomorrow :-) But I'm really looking forward to the closing season of Scrubs! Just one more month...

Re:Not so much

[gweihir]

Meeep, 0wned!

Ever heard of PR? The Gates-Foundation is basically expensive PR, that does not even come close to undoing damage done by Microsoft. Basically created to make others feel good about Microsoft. In order for this to work, of course the foundation has to do genuine good work. But what counts is the overall picture, which looks quite bad.

Re:Not so much

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't Lupus.

Re:Not so much

[Sunburnt]

The Gates-Foundation is basically expensive PR, that does not even come close to undoing damage done by Microsoft.

Microsoft is starving children in Africa? Perspective, please.

Re:Not so much

[gweihir]

Of course the good work will be done as far removed from the bad work and of different type. Quite elementary and obvious. You do not seem to understand how PR works...

Re:Not so much

[Johnny5000]

Of course the good work will be done as far removed from the bad work and of different type. Quite elementary and obvious. You do not seem to understand how PR works...

Right... Microsoft does shitty things for the business world and other businesses.
The Gates Foundation does good things for actual humans.

I suppose if you value business way more than human life, then you could argue that Microsoft does more damage than the Gates Foundation does good.

Re:Not so much

[jollyreaper]

5 billion less people on Earth would solve nearly every socio-economic and environmental problem we currently face. Everybody talks about overpopulation but nobody does anything about it. Although come to think of it, I believe Dick Cheney has a plan... :)

Re:Not so much

[schon]

Microsoft does shitty things for the business world and other businesses. yes, and as we all know, businesses and the business world exist in their own separate reality, completely separated from people. So when "bad" things happen to to businesses, it has absolutely zero effect on real, living people.

Just like those house loans recently.. that was just business. No real actual people were affected.

Re:Not so much

[Johnny5000]

yes, and as we all know, businesses and the business world exist in their own separate reality, completely separated from people. So when "bad" things happen to to businesses, it has absolutely zero effect on real, living people.

I should have clarified that I do understand the point that the negative effects on business do actually impact people.
Maybe some loss of wealth, people losing their jobs, etc. All bad things, sure. I realize this.

The OP was making it sound like for every one life the Gates Foundation saved, Microsoft killed two.

Re:Not so much

[Sunburnt]

You do not seem to understand how PR works...

Sorry, but you're quite wrong. I'm not arguing that the B&MGF somehow makes up for the douchiness of MS. Quite the contrary: I'm arguing against the logic which produces both the preceding statement and your own statement about the B&MGF not making up for the douchiness of MS. If you believe either statement, then you're buying into the same overreaching frame of reference as the PR folks.

How about this:

Bill Gates' business acts in an oft-reprehensible manner.
Bill Gates' foundation acts in an oft-commendable manner.

Hey, look, those statements refer to completely different activities. Why should either be taken as a reflection of the other?

Meanwhile, what does this say about Bill Gates as a person; is he bad or good? Well, he's a bad person with regards to the computer industry, and a good person for the charitable works industry. Why is it necessary to conflate both into some abstract "person?"

Frankly, I think it's pointless to assume that a person's or a company's good deeds can make up for, or fail to make up for, their bad deeds, and I think it's illogical to assume otherwise. Nothing personal, as it's a very common form of illogic that I catch myself in all the time, and usually in hindsight.

Re:Not so much

[Mister Whirly]

Ever heard of PR? Slashdot is basically inexpensive negative PR, that does not even come close to doing damage to Microsoft. Basically created to make others feel bad about Microsoft. In order for this to work, of course the foundation has to do any genuine work. But what counts is the overall picture, which looks quite bad for Microsoft, if you believe everything you read on the internet.

Re:Not so much

[virgil_disgr4ce]

It's NEVER Lupus!

Re:Not so much

[Mister Whirly]

Sweet "Theme from Shaft" reference in your sig BTW...

Re:Not so much

[gweihir]

Meanwhile, what does this say about Bill Gates as a person; is he bad or good? Well, he's a bad person with regards to the computer industry, and a good person for the charitable works industry. Why is it necessary to conflate both into some abstract "person?"

Because I was anserwring to a posting that essentially said "Oh, look. There is the Gates Foundation. BG cannto be a bad person."

I do agree that the impact of BGs actions and the judgement whether he is good or bad as a person are two dofferent things. Personally I don't think he is bad. I think he is trying to be good, but fails catastrophically because of personal incompetence with regard to anything technological. Pretty pathetic and my reason why I never would like to be BG or like him.

Re:Not so much

[el americano]

This is a legitimate moral dilemma. Since the money came from the same source, does one unrelated activity outweigh the other? That's not illogical at all.

Re:Not so much

[Mr. Slippery]

Everybody talks about overpopulation but nobody does anything about it.

Every time I use a condom, I'm doing something about it.

Re:Not so much

[Torvaun]

But it always can be.

Re:Not so much

[Torvaun]

I am actively not having sex right now. In fact, if we consider how many times I have not used a vagina, I'm probably responsible for hundreds, if not thousands of people not being on this planet.

Re:Not so much

[Anonymous Coward]

How much better would the world be if Microsoft would be good? I don't think very much. The thing is not that business does not affect people. It is that Microsofts business affects only people who have a good live anyway, measured on international average.

Re:Not so much

[Anonymous Coward]

Sort of like the way I'm actively not an astronaut, or actively not 8 feet tall? Not be meaning, I'm in the same situation, but let's be realistic with ourselves.

Related stories

[speaker of the truth]

I'm really having a hard time seeing how Bill Gates being nominated for president is a relevant story to nerd tv shows... unless its going to be the premise of a new bad comedy?

Re:Related stories

[Chrisje]

WTF? I'm afraid that if the choice was between Dubya, Cheney or Gates, I'd go with Gates for president in a heart beat.

You don't realize it, but you're already living in a bad comedy. It's kinda like Southpark, but without the humor.

Nostradamus says....

[smithcl8]

This article shall incite many flaming posts.

Re:Nostradamus says....

[tehcyder]

Nostradamus was French.

Who is Fall ?

[Anonymous Coward]

and why is he a geek ?

Re:Who is Fall ?

[deniable]

No, it's "The Fall Geek," a remake of an 80s stunt man show.

Re:Who is Fall ?

[Mister Whirly]

And he's been seen with Farrah...

The IT Crowd

[Burb]

For those of us in the UK, there's always the IT Crowd. It's a bit hit and miss, but the second season seems to be hitting the spot more often compared to the first.

Re:The IT Crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? the new IT Crowd is much worse than season 1.. they're always going off on unrelated adventures, and are only 1/10th as geeky as they were before. That being said, I do like the new Wernhem (sp?).

Re:The IT Crowd

[Scutter]

The second season is doing better because it has nothing to do with IT the way the first season did, so it's got broader appeal. Oh, and what's up with their office looking like an apartment this season? It's like the producers have never seen the inside of an IT department.

Re:The IT Crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

The first three episodes of season 2 were weak, but it's picked up since. Though having said that, when you only have 6 episodes to work with, taking three of them to "warm up" isn't good.

Oh and Wired, no they can't drop the "laugh track". It's filmed in front of a live audience, you dolt.

Re:The IT Crowd

[ThirdPrize]

Their plan seems to be lose all the geek viewers and turn it into friends. :(

Re:The IT Crowd

[sammyF70]

the last episode (about Jen's bra) was rather good though, but the three or so first ones were lacking on the nerd factor (still better than most of the other shows out there anyway) But then .. I'm white, male, wear jeans and t-shirts, 30ish, and work with a nerdy black guy I'd call my friend in the IT department of a company, so it's rather hard not to identify ;)

Re:The IT Crowd

[Xiaran]

I agree the second season is fairly weak so far... but I forgave them greatly for the parody of the "You wouldn't steal a car would you" ad... That stupid anti-piracy ad definitely needed the piss taken out of it.

Re:The IT Crowd

[CrazyTalk]

I live in the US and got hooked on that show watching it in clips on the internet. I hear that a US version is in the works, like with "The Office".

Re:The IT Crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

you can watch full episodes of the UK version online: http://tv-links.co.uk/

the american version, like all such translations, will be sure to suck

Re:The IT Crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. The dinner party episode reminded me so much of Coupling, and I always hated the dinner party episodes of Coupling.

Re:The IT Crowd

[Larch]

I've heard it's being done by the same people who did the US version of the Office. The US version of the Office isn't much like the UK version, but it's a pretty decent show anyway.

I'm holding out hope it won't be as bad as the US Red Dwarf pilot anyway.

Re:The IT Crowd

[h4rryc4ry]

The guy from "The Soup", Joel McHale stars in it.
It's scheduled as a mid-season replacement next spring.

Who doesnt want to be a two legged stereotype?

[edwardpickman]

He may be a skinny Dilbert but Gates is also Narcessisstic and dull. There has to be a better geek poster child? Yes everyone wants the money but the point is who wants to be Bill Gates without the money? Hes a pain in the ass and people put up with him because he has money. Take away the money and all you are left with is the pain in the ass.

Re:Who doesnt want to be a two legged stereotype?

[MotorMachineMercenar]

I trust you know him personally? Making such assumptions based solely on his media persona and hearsay would be... what's the word... Right: idiotic.

Re:Who doesnt want to be a two legged stereotype?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Woz is a better geek.

Re:Who doesnt want to be a two legged stereotype?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on! What makes ANYONE cool is a full carriage of money.
So, Bill Gates is the coolest geek alive, because he is a geek and he is a billionaire.
Warren Buffet is the coolest old perv alive, because he is an old perv and he is a billionaire.
And so on...
If I was a billionaire, and consequently cool, I won't be wasting my time writing responses on slashdot, as I would be so busy with all those brainless girls in micro-thongs on my champagne pool... and that works for everybody here.
So, stop to be envious of Big Bill and adore him as our new God and savior. (if he pays us obviously...)

Re:Who doesnt want to be a two legged stereotype?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Woz.

Cool?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's so cool about being a monopolist who can't code for shit?

Apart from the cash.

Re:Cool?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Bill Gates is very lucky that he turned out to be a better businessman than he is a programmer.

IT Crowd?

[Zelos]

What distinguishes the five best shows -- ... U.K. Channel 4's The IT Crowd...

If the lineup is bad enough the the IT Crowd shows up in the top 5, I wouldn't exactly call this a bumper line up. Sitcoms are meant to be funny.

Re:IT Crowd?

[StarvingSE]

The IT Crowd is hilarious. Perhaps you don't appreciate British humor? Not everyone is into it, and this show is full of it. I know many people who love the US version of The Office, but hate the original British version.

Re:IT Crowd?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, each to his own but I think it's the best Comedy on in the UK at the moment by a long way..

e.g. Moss and Roy setting up Jen to announce at the heads of department meeting that entering the word "Google" as a search term into google could "break the internet. Really - Don't do it - Not even for a joke" .. and Moss inventing the ultimate bra with only minor overheating problems.. Oh well, maybe you have to see it...

Re:IT Crowd?

[Zelos]

I'm English, my favourite sitcom is probably Fawlty Towers, but I just didn't find the IT crowd funny. I watched about half the first series before I stopped, from the first episode of the new series I saw the other day it hasn't got any better.

It was just too laboured and slow, jokes that should be quick throwaway jokes are stretched out far too thin.

Re:IT Crowd?

[Anonymous Coward]

The current series is better than the first one (honest). It's not Father Ted or Black Books, but it's not Hippies either.

Re:IT Crowd?

[Simulant]

"The IT Crowd" is cute & amusing but it's nowhere near hilarious as other UK comedies like "Coupling" or "The Green Room" I find "The IT Crowd" characters to be a bit over-caricatured for my taste and most of the humor is silly/low brow. On the other hand, they do have some good IT jokes now & again and it's probably the only show you'll see those on. IMHO, the best part of the show are all the IT references scattered around the set. They've definitely got true geeks on the staff.

Re:IT Crowd?

[HgTstr]

I agree, I thought the first season was very funny and fresh. I suspect, like most Brit comedies, once it is brought over to my side of the ocean and remade, it will be so 'Americanized' it will fall flat. I remember watching the US version of Coupling and thinking it trash, while the original is still one of my favorite series.

Putting the empty monitor case on the fire and calling it a screensaver - just thinking of that that scene still cracks me up.

Re:IT Crowd?

[WombatDeath]

Agreed - I'm English and I thought that the IT Crowd was absolutely dreadful. I tried, I really did - particularly since the godly Chris Morris is in it - but for the life of me I couldn't sit through it without wincing. A massive disappointment.

Re:IT Crowd?

[Anonymous Coward]

What distinguishes the five best shows -- ... U.K. Channel 4's The IT Crowd...

If the lineup is bad enough the the IT Crowd shows up in the top 5, I wouldn't exactly call this a bumper line up. Sitcoms are meant to be funny. If you haven't found season 2 funny, I would wager that you are not alive.

Why does the media still call tech folks nerds ?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell! Its about time we stopped perpetuating ignorance. So what if someone likes computers why should they be called geeks, nerds, and dorks. Have you ever wondered why US school suck so much? It might have to do with the fact that intelligent educated people are belittled by the media.

Gates Didn't Change the Face of The Geek

[Apple Acolyte]

Gates didn't change the face of the geek. He reaffirmed it. The only thing Gates did was make people more conscious and envious of geek achievement.

Nerd TV is not good TV

[Herkum01]

I am sure that these shows, will be crap. Just like all the pandering that networks do when someone INVENTS a new audience. If it is too good, "Firefly" or "Farscape", they will immediately run out and cancel it because the audience is too small and they cannot sell advertising on Sci-Fi.

Re:Nerd TV is not good TV

[moosesocks]

Battlestar Galactica's still on, and even though it's entering into its last season, I imagine that it wasn't ever meant to last much longer. The great thing about BSG is that it's enjoyable from the perspective of Nerds, SciFi geeks, and normal people alike. The writing's good, and the acting is well above-par as far as primetime TV is concerned. It's accessible in the sort of way that the original 1970s Star Wars films were.

Heroes also has huge nerd appeal, and is currently NBC's top-ranked show -- and it deserves it too. Almost everyone I know who's watched it has become immediately hooked.

Re:Nerd TV is not good TV

[DeadChobi]

I think Heroes has a lot of appeal because it takes two things we're familiar with as a culture, superheroes and real life, and mixes them together. The biggest niche shows always seem to be the ones that combine unfamiliar things into one even more unfamiliar thing, if that makes any sense.

It really helps that in Heroes the characters all appear to be living, breathing people who are reacting to the same situations any of us would find ourselves in if we woke up in the mundane world to find ourselves with superpowers.

Also, Hiro 4tw.

Re:Nerd TV is not good TV

[e4g4]

I downloaded (from Amazon Unbox) the pilot for "Chuck" - while the technical aspects require quite the suspension of disbelief (transferring what must have been petabytes of data over wireless in seconds) the show is pretty entertaining, and pretty unpredictable (which automatically makes it better than 99% of other network programs). That said, I'm sure all the *other* shows will be crap. :P

Oh, and for the love of all that is holy *do not* watch a program called "Big Bang Theory" - thirty seconds of that and I wanted to take a drill to my temple.

Re:Nerd TV is not good TV

[Gypsy2012]

Ahhhh, yes, a drill bit, thats the feeling in my temple.... my GODS! that show was aweful... I actually lasted a whole 5 minutes! But, then again, I'm now prying out drill bits unlike e4g4 who just wanted to put it there.... so, don't take me too far on it.

"Geek" as main character != geek TV

[nathan.fulton]

This is geek culture? And goes it appeal to geeks? I suppose it could be that I don't understand the difference between IT culture and geek culture, but that would be a crime that all of network TV is guilty of, too. I'd much prefer if those slots were filled with good Science Fiction or good educational TV, as I'm sure is true with most others in the geek community. A show about a guy with a pocket protector doesn't qualify automatically as about, or appealing to, geeks.

Re:"Geek" as main character != geek TV

[Aladrin]

Assuming they are done right, a geek as the main character IS a geek show. If it's not done right, there will be so many glaring problems that it'll be nobody's show.

The IT Crowd is hilarious, if you've ever worked tech support for any company, anywhere. Second season has drifted away from the geek jokes, but I have faith they'll come back. Oh, and their first question is -never- 'Are you sure it's plugged in?' That's the second one. The first is always 'Have you tried turning it off and back on again?' If they're going to review the show, they should probably actually watch it, instead of watching clips and pretending to have seen it all.

Chuck is okay, Journeyman looks interesting but probably cliche, Reaper and Pushing Daisies I had -never- heard of, but now want to check out the first ep, and the Sarah Connor Chronicles worries me... Will they REALLY do a good job of this, or will it be worse than the last couple movies? Series are usually worse, and I don't know if I could handle that. Also, Summer as 'genius' bothers me... I still see her as the not-all-there River from Firefly. (Oddly, wikipedia has a picture of her looking normal... I guess the producers didn't want that.)

Re:"Geek" as main character != geek TV

[Kris_J]

Reaper is crap, Sarah Conner Chronicles is seriously questionable. Meanwhile, Pushing Daisies absolutely rocks.

Re:"Geek" as main character != geek TV

[jeffeb3]

I have a feeling that chuck is going to make fun of geeks more than give geeks a character to rally around. Therefore, it is not a geek show, it is a show with a geek as a main character. There have been geek shows in the past that everyone enjoys. The Pretender comes to mind.

Re:"Geek" as main character != geek TV

[Joe Tie.]

The IT Crowd is hilarious, if you've ever worked tech support for any company, anywhere. Second season has drifted away from the geek jokes, but I have faith they'll come back.

They might go all out on the next episode, but that's apparently all that's left of the season. So unless they get picked up again. Season 2's been a solid show, but much closer to tv geek culture than the real geek culture of the first. As long as it's still more amusing than most other shows. I can't complain too much though. And they're still throwing us a bone every now and again. Any show where a character mentions firefox extensions at a dinner party is doing something right. And I'm even somewhat looking forward to the American remake. I just hope it doesn't become pointless in terms of simply parroting existing episodes. More, instead of less, IT related material would be a really nice treat. Not that I'm overly hopeful for it.

Oh, and a solid thumbs up on Pushing Daisies. I think it's easily going to be the best new show of the year.

Re:"Geek" as main character != geek TV

[Pingmaster]

I was fully expecting to see Mythbusters in the lineup, or something similar. This is just tripe spat out from some retarded marketing department to get ratings from joe six-pack who thinks that 'geek shows' must feature some napoleon dynamite type who, using their ability to recite the Periodic Table, or the entire ASCII character set in binary, somehow manages to save the world, but still can't talk to girls..

Re:Why does the media still call tech folks nerds

[fractoid]

Actually, they still call techies 'nerds' because that's the word to describe the type of people that techies are. However, the meaning of the word has changed. Well, rather, those of us in the know call us 'geeks'. Difference? A geek knows the difference between geek and nerd, a nerd doesn't. :P It used to be that 'geek' meant 'reject', now it means 'smart, technically inclined person who is likely to be rich and/or interesting'. Or maybe it's different in the US...

McG sucks

[Johnny5000]

If McG claims that "Chuck" is a reflection of real life, then you can bet it's about as far from real life as one can possibly get.

Hollywood Understands

[cloudwilliam]

I'll bet all these shows will just ooze cool sophistication. I mean, why didn't we start getting shows geared toward us fifteen years ago when everyone saw how awesome Unix was when they watched Jurassic Park?

Seriously, I hate to be cynical, but as much as Battlestar Galactica is the coolest show I've seen in years, most of Hollywood's understanding of biological science seems to be some variation on Frankenstein, their physical science based on Looney Tunes, and their concept of computer science is best left unmentioned. I'll bet they're making the same mistakes they've always made: thinking good shows can be about some World's Fair technology show and the World of Tomorrow when they should be about the story and the people.

Re:Hollywood Understands

[Dr. Smoove]

Hackers is Hollywood CS.

"Oh look a junk file"

Classic

Re:Hollywood Understands

[imgod2u]

If you make a show about Geek people, you'll have an hour of some guy sitting in a dark room staring at a computer screen reading /.

Re:Hollywood Understands

[Joe Tie.]

most of Hollywood's understanding of biological science seems to be some variation on Frankenstein

That's one of my main beefs with science fiction on TV. All the sciences are usually fairly bad, but biology seems to be the worst of the worst there. Which, in the current rejection of so much of the science in the public is a bit worrisome. Star Trek in particular has shown some of the most horrible grasps of evolution. I can forgive the forehead aliens, but time and time again they present evolution happening on either the individual level, or showing it as something goal driven to the human conception of a certain ideal. Amazingly bad, to the point where anyone past grade school should cringe. And, yet, for some reason I still love the series.

Re:Hollywood Understands

[Dr. Manhattan]

If you make a show about Geek people, you'll have an hour of some guy sitting in a dark room staring at a computer screen reading /.

Doesn't have to be. "2001" and "The Abyss" got their (human) science pretty well right. Sure the aliens did magic stuff - they're supposed to be more advanced than us - but everything the humans did was either known to be possible or were plausible extensions of existing technology. And they were good movies, too.

Of course, just getting the tech (mostly) right isn't any guarantee of good entertainment. E.g. "Antitrust", which even used real I.P. addresses (the satellites are on a private 10.x.x.x subnet) but failed in the plot and characterization area.

Good science fiction assumes one impossible thing, or extends current trends to logical limits, and explores what happens then. You have to get, as the GP suggests, the characterization right - but with science fiction, you also have to get the tech right, and mostly they don't bother. It's a shame, too, because much of the time it doesn't have to be that way.

Re:Hollywood Understands

[stewbacca]

Jurassic Park had very blatant PowePC Macintosh product placement. Not much Unix going on with Macs back then...

Re:Hollywood Understands

[Anonymous Coward]

Lex: It's a UNIX system! I know this!

The park software is written in Pascal; a program is clearly visible in one of the monitor close-ups on the UNIX system. The graphical interface recognized as a UNIX system was a fictional Silicon Graphics 3D File System Navigator, a real-life version of which was later written in response to the film. The version number of the Silicon Graphics UNIX Operating System is 4.0.5 and is visible in one of the close-ups in the operating system's shell window (command program).

Both entries are from the IMDB web page for the movie. The first from the quotes section and the second from the trivia section.

Maybe you should watch it again.

Re:Hollywood Understands

[agent_no.82]

Battlestar Galactica is filmed in Vancouver, not Hollywood. Perhaps this is part of the reason why it's better?

Re:Why does the media still call tech folks nerds

[lwriemen]

You forgot socially awkward. The humor and angst are lost if the tech person is also popular and outgoing. Where are all the roles for the tall, well muscled, good looking IT personnel? ;-)

Not me...

[gweihir]

BG has a keen sense of business, no sense of fair play and as an engineer, he is third-rated at best. There is evidence that he does not know he is a bad engineer, which makes him even worse. Furthermore he has wasted so many hours of lifetime of others by the failing in the engineering department, that he is a serious mass-murderer by accumulation.

Redeeming features: None that I can see. Money is not a redeeming feature, since making a lot of it typically means taking it form others without giving back fair value back.

And he is not even cool. I have zero aspirations in his direction. In fact, I think he is the prototypical high-profile failed geek, that has not managed to use his skills for good.

Re:Not me...

[elrous0]

Redeeming features: None that I can see.

I guess being one of the most generous philanthropists in the world, and the one of only two of the world's richest people who have vowed to give their money entirely to charity at the deaths doesn't count as a "redeeming quality," huh?

You know, this MS-bashing gets a little tiresome on /. sometimes. Say what you want about Gate's business practices, but he has done more for worthwhile charities in this world than that arrogant prick Steve Jobs or whiney Linus Thorvalds EVER will. Jobs walks around in his turtleneck ACTING like some noble hippie, all the while muscling companies and sharing none of his $ with charity. Linus Thorvalds acts like some great open source advocate, all the while jealously guarding his kernal like he's the Lord of the Universe. Meanwhile Gates actually gives all his money away to help AID's-ridden Africans and we treat HIM like shit.

Re:Not me...

[gweihir]

I guess being one of the most generous philanthropists in the world, and the one of only two of the world's richest people who have vowed to give their money entirely to charity at the deaths doesn't count as a "redeeming quality," huh?

It depends very much hiow the money was made. If you make hundreds of millions in crooked ways and give thens of millions to charity, then you are not a philantrophis, but a reprehensible bad person. You cannot buy yourself free from the bad acts you have commited. BG is respnsible for decades of slowing down the compyter revolution, for billions in lost revenue, and jobs because of insecure stuff, for countless hours of wasted personal time and for a significant negative impact on economic growth. This may sound abstract, but it does kill people and make life hell for others. Spending part of his ill-gotten fortune on charity in an attempt to buy himself good karma does not impress at all.

Re:Not me...

[gweihir]

P.s.: I from what I hear, Linux is a prick with a huge ego, that takes himself far too seriously. I don't mind. I do not work with Linus, I work with Linux. Most of Linux is not written by Linus anyways.

Incidentially, this seems to be some sort of behaviour pattern: People that create good technology are often difficult to deal with in person. I have had first hand reports that Nicolas Wirth is a prick and I have had personal run-ins with Bertrand Mayer. Still, both produced very impressive technologuy.

Re:Not me...

[Anonymous Coward]

"It depends very much hiow the money was made"

No, it doesn't one bit. Money is money and buys the same goods and services, depending on whether or not YOU agree with "how it was made". Giving money to charity is giving money to charity no matter who you are. Bill Gates doesn't give a shit about what some little twat on Slashdot thinks of his "karma". Get a life.

Re:Not me...

[Torvaun]

Don't forget Hans Reiser. Allegedly.

Re:Not me...

[Jaime2]

Which makes you more generous, giving to the point that it financially hurts you, or writing the biggest check?

Bill Gates minus 30 billion dollars equals the tenth richest man in America. No skin off his nose. The average American giving twenty thousand dollars would be a much more generous person. If you wanted to take a cynical look at it, you could come to the conclusion that BG is buying some credibility so he can get into the history books in a better light, or so he could rub elbows with the people who wouldn't talk to him 20 yesrs ago.

Sure, the fact that BG gave the money is a credit to his character. But it doesn't make him a "good" person all by itself.

Re:Not me...

[gweihir]

"It depends very much hiow the money was made"

No, it doesn't one bit.

Seems to me you do not understand the concept of "moral" and "ethics". Or is this the fascinatint, but entierly reprehensible, american believe, that being rich makes you a respectable individual, since you have achieved something?

Re:Not me...

[tehcyder]

BG is respnsible for decades of slowing down the compyter revolution, for billions in lost revenue, and jobs because of insecure stuff, for countless hours of wasted personal time and for a significant negative impact on economic growth. This may sound abstract, but it does kill people and make life hell for others.

You forgot that he breakfasts on puppy dogs' hearts, and bathes in the still-warm tears of angels he has tortured to death solely for his own pleasure.

Re:Not me...

[elrous0]

It's not many people who have the balls to cut their kids completely off from any inheritance. I don't see Steve Jobs doing that. In fact, I don't see Steve doing ANYTHING for charity, token or otherwise. He only plays a hippie on TV, I guess.

But old Steve is our /. hero. And Bill is evil Mr. Borg!

My fall TV lineup...

[Anonymous Coward]

is waiting for Weeds to come back to showtime :(

Re:My fall TV lineup...

[Gadgit]

Didn't Weeds start over a month ago? Check TV.com, but I know I have seen like 4 new episodes already.

Re:My fall TV lineup...

[oftencloudy]

Yes, this week's episode of Weed's will be Episode 7 of Season 3.

Heavy on sitcom and fantasy

[smchris]

I project two, maybe three, I could possibly watch regularly.

Journeyman

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I just hope that in Journeyman, he travels back in time to Rome, and does another season of it.

Uneven Shows

[Brazilian Geek]

I watched a few of the leaked shows that they reviewed (don't you love the Internets?) so I'll comment on them.

Chuck: Fun like Burn Notice and Psych but not very nerdy. It's got the nerd culture in it, the socially inept folks and close friendships get good grades from me. However, some parts are very poorly executed: magical images that contain steganography that the brain decodes, an HD explodes from a 4' drop inside the case and a few others that fell flat to me. Oh, it's got Jayne so that's a plus.

Big Bang Theory: Imagine, as someone one EZTV said, Revenge of the Nerds written by mindless jocks. It's crap, crap, crap, so much crap that I was insulted by it.

Journeyman: I thought it was an interesting story, maybe we've seen it before (Quantum Leap) but we haven't as he's not leaping into other people nor is he shifting into the distant past so I think it'll have mainstream appeal (for a few episodes at least). Disclaimer though, I like Kevin McKidd, for a guy in his early 30's he had a lot of heart in his Vorenus character.

The IT Crowd (UK): I watch the show and I have a lot of laughs with it but I'm a sucker for UK comedies. As for geek culture, I have to say it's not perfect but it comes close. In case you've never watched it, the references are the stickers in the office, Roy's t-shirts and Moss' and Roy's personalities (they're socially challenged). I guess that it does come close as, being a practicing nerd, I'm not always talking about gadgets and geeky sites nor am I obsessed with computers and science so I guess it's more organic.

Re:Uneven Shows

[owlnation]

I watched the leaked copies too. My opinion for what it's worth.

• Chuck -- looks great, the pilot had me interested in seeing how the characters develop.
• Big Bang Theory -- if this makes it beyond 6 episodes I'll be astonished. It's the same old tired 4 camera sitcom format, with a slight geek twist. The the format is very wrong. Do it single camera and maybe...
• Journeyman -- I'll not be watching that again. My guess is it makes it to either a mid season or one full season before getting axed. It has all the charisma and writing grace of Jericho. Which probably means there will be rabid minority cult following.
• The IT Crowd -- Being British I fail to understand why anyone in the US likes UK comedies. This one is the perfect example - underwritten, overacted, lousy camera work, cheap sets, and directed with sledgehammer blows. The concept is great, the execution more painful that that of Marie Antoinette. I know the US one has already been canceled, but I do hope it was better -- the US versions usually are (see The Office for proof of concept). You usually have to have talent to get on TV in the US, you just have to know the right people in the UK. (I have worked in UK TV, I speak from experience)
• Bionic Woman - the remake makes the original look slick and deeply artistic. God awful acting. God awful writing. despite what I said above, there sometimes are people with no talent on US TV. Here's one of those times. It will be huge success I'm sure. It's as shallow as it gets though. Not geek fayre at all -- pure mainstream.
• The Sarah Connor Chronicles - Not sure about the actor who plays Sarah Connor, however the rest of the show is great. Summer is perfect as a Terminatrix.
  
• Pushing Up Daises -- I want to see all the episodes of this right now. This looks wonderful. Very original design and script. I think I'm going to love it. It'll probably get canceled after one season -- it's far too intelligent to make it beyond that. A cult classic though.

Re:Uneven Shows

[Joe Tie.]

Being British I fail to understand why anyone in the US likes UK comedies.

I think it helps, a lot, that we only see the best of the best of it. Where with the American shows most of us can't help to see the 90% that's crap, constantly, and then hear our coworkers talk about it. That said, I actually do quite like the IT crowd.

Pushing Up Daises -- I want to see all the episodes of this right now. This looks wonderful. Very original design and script. I think I'm going to love it. It'll probably get canceled after one season -- it's far too intelligent to make it beyond that. A cult classic though.

My exact reaction. It was beautifully done in almost every way, and there's little chance that's going to last. It had both expensive, and small neilson ratings, written all over it.

Re:Uneven Shows

[Anonymous Coward]

• The IT Crowd

Wait, this thing made it past the pilot? I remember when the pilot was put online shortly before the series aired -- it was mentioned here on Slashdot. It was so very bad... predictable plotting and stereotypical characters are bad enough, but when you pile on bad dialog, bad acting and bad camera work... Man, I just can't believe that that show survived.

Re:Uneven Shows

[tricorn]

Being British I fail to understand why anyone in the US likes UK comedies ... I do hope it was better -- the US versions usually are.

I thought Coupling (original UK version) was absolutely hilarious, but the US version of it was horrible. The first episode was, as near as I could tell, word for word the same script, and it just fell totally flat. I don't know if it was the timing, the chemistry between the actors, the laugh track or just poor delivery, but it didn't last long.

Re:Uneven Shows

[friedmud]

Wow... your comments almost exactly mirror my own thoughts on all of these shows! Specifically I really liked Chuck and can't wait to see Pushing Up Daises.

In contrast to you though... I think Pushing Up Daises is going to be fairly well received. I've been talking to a lot of people about the new fall shows... and the one show everyone mentions as a "must see" is Pushing Up Daises...

I guess we'll have to see how it works out... but I think we might be surprised by PUD.

Friedmud

Re:Uneven Shows

[tholomyes]

I'm really glad to hear good things about "Pushing Up Daisies", from the ads I've seen it looks pretty great. The main actor was really good as the older brother in Wonderfalls, too, I hope this show doesn't meet the same fate.

Re:Uneven Shows

[Dadoo]

I thought Coupling (original UK version) was absolutely hilarious...

Holy... ! I was just about to say the exact same thing, word for word (your whole statement, not just the part I quoted). Are you sure you're not a clone of me? :-)

Gates???

[DoofusOfDeath]

when Bill Gates became the (richest), most aspirational, coolest guy in the world

Well, at least 1/3 correctness is better than nothing.

Seriously... I doubt many non-geeks thing Gates is cool, and a large fraction of bona fide geeks loathe him.

Re:Gates???

[Martian_Kyo]

Gates isn't even a geek. I mean I never viewed him as a computer guy. He is primarily a businessman. Yes, he knows more about computers then your average businessman, but he is still one of them. Paul Allen was the geek.

Re:Why does the media still call tech folks nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

... You do realise you're at a site whose slogan is "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters" don't you?

nerd "culture"

[theMerovingian]

Real nerds don't watch TV... These people are just poseurs trying to get in on the anti-fashion bandwagon.

Five years is immediate?

[technoextreme]

Farscape lasted for five years on the Sci-Fi. I wouldn't call that immediate.

Re:Five years is immediate?

[IndustrialComplex]

The Sci-fi channel has a very specific audience. It means that the only competition for advertising revenue is from other people who would advertise to that audience.

You run into a problem when trying to place a show on a large network. While the show may be very well done, the amount the network can actually charge for advertising is less because the demographic is a smaller slice of the pie. Lets say 100k people watch 'Sci-fi show' the network can only charge so much for that 100k audience. However, 'reality show B' draws in an audience of only 400k. Not a huge audience by network standards, but it completely blows the sci-fi show away in terms of advertising revenue.

But as you said, Farscape did 5 years on the Sci-fi channel. Thats because while it may not draw much of an audience, any replacement show isn't going to draw more of an audience than a sci-fi show on a sci-fi network UNLESS that show is better. (There are always exceptions of course)

Re:Five years is immediate?

[mikael]

I guess that explains why there is so much more of what is more supernatural (vampires/ghosts/hauntings/reality TV) on the channel now, rather than pure Space Science Fiction (Star Trek, Voyager, Babylon 5, Farscape, Lexx).

Re:Five years is immediate?

[IndustrialComplex]

It seems a lot of 'fantasy' gets mislabeled as sci-fi as well. I've seen many people here on Slashdot complain that what is labeled sci-fi, isn't. So some of the networks may view those supernatural type shows as sci-fi and may even try to suggest that it may pull in the 'geek' demographic.

In the network's defense, Sci-fi and fantasy can be very segmented. While an outside observer (Network executive) may view sci-fi as one catch-all, it is quite possible to have someone love one aspect of Sci-fi, but hate another segment.

To work off a well known story, take the Hitchhiker's guide. It is Sci-fi (sort of), but also a social commentary presented with a darkish humor. Now compare that to Star Wars, which is much more Science-fantasy. Both of these get lumped into the same catch-all that is 'sci-fi'. What makes this tricky for any sci-fi show, is that you could end up fracturing your target audience to an even smaller group even though that group may love 'Sci-Fi' in general.

So you have this show, for the Sci-fi/fantasy market. Audience there is 250k.

Well, it is more sci-fi than fantasy, you lose 50k (100k prefers fantasy, but there is some cross over) It is post-apocolyptic Earth (shave off 25k who prefer space sci-fi)

So now we are down to an audience of 175k from a total 250k even before we know if the story is worthwhile.

The show is ok, but not amazing (lose 50k)
The show has a tough timeslot (lose 50k to another show)

Now we are down to 125k.

And back to my original point: The network realizes that a reality show spinoff could result in a starting audience of 300k, for 1/2 the production costs.

Re:Five years is immediate?

[mikael]

To work off a well known story, take the Hitchhiker's guide. It is Sci-fi (sort of), but also a social commentary presented with a darkish humor.

I would categorise that as present time on Earth but with future technology (Vogon starfleet, The Improbability Drive) , while Star Wars is far future and with future technology in distant space. Dr. Who is more future technology in the present day given the number of scenes that are street based (+time travel for the past/present).

The womenfolk in my family can watch what they consider Science Fiction as long as it doesn't have actors in rubber suits or with lumpy faces. They don't mind robots, furry creatures but they draw the line at Godzilla Jr., so they can watch Blakes 7, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, and Logan's Run, but they tune out with Babylon 5, Voyager and anything with demons like Angel or Good vs. Evil.

Would be interesting

[esconsult1]

But hey, I don't watch live TV anymore, so, what fall lineup?

Seriously, one downside of Tivo'ing (or Myth'ing for the zealots) everything is that you FF through the ads and just never see the promotions for silly new shows. You also miss the movie promotions. So what then?

Re:Would be interesting

[Rob T Firefly]

Seriously, one downside of Tivo'ing (or Myth'ing for the zealots) everything is that you FF through the ads and just never see the promotions for silly new shows. You also miss the movie promotions. So what then? True. If only a nerd-focused website I visited often would point me to reviews of.... heyyyyy!

Re:Would be interesting

[Paulrothrock]

That's why I listen to Slice of Sci Fi to get news about shows I'd like to watch.

Re:Would be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

what fall lineup?

The one which apparently only includes the Big Five networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and CW). God help you if you want to watch a show on networks like SciFi (Eureka, Doctor Who, Stargate Etcetera) or Lifetime (Blood Ties). I've yet to find a published schedule for these networks. The network sites are no help: they offer all sorts of crap regarding the show except the schedule! Sites like TV Guide are of limited use: two weeks into the future, especially during premiers, is not enough to guess the schedule. Every year I have to go through this crap by hand. It's infuriating.

Seriously, one downside of Tivo'ing (or Myth'ing for the zealots) everything is that you FF through the ads and just never see the promotions for silly new shows.

Unless you are using 30-sec skip or ad-skip (both of which are pretty unethical, IMHO, as they turn watching TV into stealing TV), I'd wager that you do see them. You might choose to ignore them, but you see them. Otherwise how do you manage to FF through the ads? Do you just close your eyes, wait some random number of seconds, and hit Play hoping you've found the show again?

Repeat after me: FF over ads != skipping ads.

Fell TV doesn't look very good.

[teflaime]

And Wired left off Moonlight, which, with Reaper, are the only vaguely interesting new shows in the lineup...Looks like a less TV, more exercise/Age of Conan, kind of fall season for me.

Riigght...

[RiffRafff]

...yeah, real cool guy...

http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html

A Show For Geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

There is one show for /.'ers on television that I can recommend - The Universe, on the History Channel.

Why? For the quality science? No. I recommend it because it teaches one very important lesson, which is -
astronomy has, by far, a higher ratio of females to males than any other branch of science.

If you are a young, male slashdotter and you too have dreams of one day getting to have sex with a woman,
then astronomy is the only field of study to consider. FACT - people who have had sex with women often
report that co-workers are an excellent source of sexual partners. FACT - if you choose the field of
astronomy, you will have many more female co-workers than you would have in any other field of science
or engineering.

I mean, just watch the show! Half the astronomers they interview are women! Easily half, maybe more!

Re:A Show For Geeks

[Toonol]

I'm a geek that ended up in Analytical Marketing. Lots of math, database stuff, but...

Wow. Female to male ratio is like 5::1. And the quality is high.

If you can find some geek niche in marketing, advertising, or merchandising, jump on it.

Re:Why does the media still call tech folks nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

Fantasy channel, yup yup yup

Sam

[the_arrow]

I'll take Samantha Carter over every other geek!

Re:Sam

[LoP_XTC]

I'll take Samantha Carter over every other geek! Personally I would rather just take her over me, but hey if that sort of thing floats your boat who am I to criticizes.

Aaron

Re:Sam

[Cold-NiTe]

Samantha Carter isn't a geek, she's attractive. Having good looks and being given an insulting label are diametrically opposed. Real female geeks must, by unwritten real world law, be just as stereotypically unattractive as their male counterparts, having a fictional Ph. D doesn't change that. Otherwise they forfeit any attempts at the title. It's the least we can do, since while male nerds just receive minimal abuse, female nerds are generally treated like they don't exist by the public at large.

Is this a good thing?

[eclectro]

I much prefer that geek culture not become popularized, because then all of our sekrits become known and spread widely.
It's kinda like when mom shines her unwelcome bright flashlight down into the basement.

Re:Is this a good thing?

[hey!]

I much prefer that geek culture not become popularized,

OK, then don't worry. Popular and geek are mutually exclusive. Even if something is popular, the geek approach to it will be ... different. Take the Simpsons. It is popular in the general public to watch, but it is geeks treat the show as a codex in which are written the secrets of life.

Now we must distinguish between shows for geeks, and shows about geeks. Any show with an elaborate fantasy component can be a show for a geek. Shows about geeks are necessarily comedies. Because geeks are supposed to be losers, it is natural to laugh at them.

This doesn't mean the show has to be stupid or offensive, it just means that a show with little ambition or talent can go for cheap laughs.

Frasier, was hands down the most artistically and economically successful show about geeks ever. The Crane brothers are not tech geeks, but they are undeniably geeks: they seek to boost their status and importance by their command of intellectual arcana. What's more, because they are geeks they are losers. Everything we see them attempt ends in frustration. However they are more than caricatures. There isn't a word I can think of for what they are: they are neither admirable nor really contemptible; they are neither unlikable nor truly likable. Somehow, you want them to win but you enjoy watching them lose.

I think the secret of that show is that while the writers give us very broad caricatures, they then proceed to write against the stereotype. The Crane brothers are arrogant and self important, but they also demonstrate an underlying sweetness and goodness in every episode. Although this always serves only to deepen their humiliation, they somehow manage to exceed expectations while they lose. They're the plucky team of losers that doesn't pull an offset against overwhelming odds (which we know in our hearts that movies that tell that story are lies), but surprises everyone by scoring at all.

What makes a show an enduring success are interesting characters, written about in a compelling way. Geeks, with their enthusiasms that often border on mania, their propensity to march to a different drummer, their tendency to be the proverbial square pegs in a round hole, are usually the most interesting people in any group. The trick is writing about them in a way that gets underneath the surface to something anybody can identify with.

"nerd" sure covers a lot of ground

[walterbyrd]

At least by Hollywood standards. A "nerd" can be anything from a top scientist or engineer, to somebody who owns a lot of shares in a software company, to a guy who works at bestbuy.

Re:Why does the media still call tech folks nerds

[TerranFury]

Where are all the roles for the tall, well muscled, good looking IT personnel? ;-)

I took them.

:-P

What are the best nerd shows?

[acherrington]

So what are the best nerd shows out there right now? What are you looking forward to? Where do you turn to to find shows you would like?

The best place I have found to get real numbers on what nerds are watching is by checking out Couchville Buzz. This is a readout of what people are recording with their beyond TV setup (in bulk, not by individual). Beyond TV is like windows media center in that it requires a little level of technical know how to get it going correctly (large drive capacity, auto defragging, TV tuners), but not so much to the point that it scares people off like mythTV (well, used to... I haven't checked it out in a while).

On a side note: McG worked on "The O.C". Seth does not epitomize nerd culture in my book. So I am curious on what his marketing of nerd culture to the media will be.

Re:What are the best nerd shows?

[0100010001010011]

Nerd based? As in Dilbert on TV. Or shows that appeal to Nerds?

If you mean the latter, I'm a fan of (In the SciFi Genre):
Eureka
Kyle XY

Re:What are the best nerd shows?

[Tipa]

That Couchville link is a pretty good find.

Most of the geeks I know don't watch much TV. The ones that do watch Simpsons, Family Guy, Heroes, Mythbusters (not one I follow, but whatever), Lost... not sure how many watch BG or Doctor Who (I have to convince people to give them a try). X-Files was hugely popular back when it was on. Probably any show that has a fan convention for it, would be by definition a favorite of geeks. Who BUT a geek would go to a convention based on a television show?

Re:What are the best nerd shows?

[PsychosisBoy]

On a side note: McG worked on "The O.C".

Don't call it that.

The Fall Anti-Geek line-up

[Cuban B]

Personally, I find the fall line-up to be particularly insulting - especially the new show, "Chuck." The guy is obviously extremely socially awkward, portrayed as being exceptionally smart, yet they say, "saving the world at $11/hr." in the advertisements. I'm failing to see the up side of Chuck's life. He's not athletic, he's only funny in the sense that you can laugh at him, his career is non-existant, but hey! He has smarts that you don't! Let's point and laugh at his situation because that thing I'm jealous of isn't as great as I secretly think it is!

I think that show in particular is quite anti-nerd, anti-IT, anti-intellectual, etc. I've certainly met people like Chuck - not very good at what they do, but they're damn sure extremely awkward, but the majority of IT folks I've met are insanely happy, always joking, and do stuff like ride their motorcycles or go mountain climbing on the weekends, they don't sit in their mother's basement playing DnD and fixing people's computers for almost no money.

I think it was already mentioned above, but if you want a truly great show for geeks/nerds/whatever you should check out House. The main character is a Doctor that is insanely intelligent and in a position of power. He's not socially awkward at all and quite funny even to a general audience. The only sense that he's "awkward" is just that he doesn't like dealing with morons and shows it every 10 seconds with hilarious insults by anyone's standards.

So who would you side with? The not-socially-awkward Doctor in a position of power or the "let's all point and laugh at the Nerd Herd!" show?

But speaking of house, the new season is on tomorrow night - check it out if you haven't already.

Re:The Fall Anti-Geek line-up

[Phaid]

You are absolutely right about House being for geeks/nerds/whatever. The "Fall Geek TV Lineup" article confuses the type of TV that IT types actually like with TV that makes fun of IT types. Chuck is the former, House is clearly the latter.

The difference is that House isn't about "geeks", it's simply about competent smart people. Shows about "geeks" are never about competent smart people, they're gimmicks built around a stupid stereotype. The few TV shows in which computer types are portrayed positively tend not to have them as central characters, and then they are usually hot chicks (I'm thinking here of "Las Vegas" and "Standoff", both of which feature very attractive female hacker types in secondary / support character roles). I'm all for hot chick computer types, but can't we ever have male hackers who are not either socially incompetent, evil, or both?

Re:The Fall Anti-Geek line-up

[Phaid]

Er, Phaid post malreported ungood rectify: "House is the former, Chuck is clearly the latter".

Re:The Fall Anti-Geek line-up

[aztektum]

I like House. The characters are great. I just wish there were a few more instances where patiences aren't miraculously saved. Or the puzzle is solved a minute too late. House would still be right and the puzzle solved. (Slight disclaimer however, I've only seen seasons 1 & 3. Season 2 I have yet to catch up on.)

Re:The Fall Anti-Geek line-up

[illumin8]

I think it was already mentioned above, but if you want a truly great show for geeks/nerds/whatever you should check out House. The main character is a Doctor that is insanely intelligent and in a position of power. He's not socially awkward at all and quite funny even to a general audience. The only sense that he's "awkward" is just that he doesn't like dealing with morons and shows it every 10 seconds with hilarious insults by anyone's standards.

House is one of the few good shows on TV. Imagine, if you will, the Bastard Operator From Hell, with the acting skill and chops of one of the finest to ever grace the BBC. That's Hugh Laurie for you. He has the ability to pull off some of the most impressive acting. Although he is a deeply flawed character, he's not a total bastard.

Re:The Fall Anti-Geek line-up

[Joe Jay Bee]

I was waiting for someone to mention House, it does seem like natural geek TV. I wasn't expecting to like it, thinking it would be more E.R. style mawk, but Laurie's one-liners and general misanthropy, plus some genuinely interesting cases and moral dilemmas handily saved it from that. Can't wait til Season 4 starts...

Re:The Fall Anti-Geek line-up

[CelticWhisper]

House is good, but if you have the means (read: torrents), check out ReGenesis. It's somewhat along the lines of House, but replace MDs with Ph.Ds, individual cases with potential viral outbreaks and pandemics, and the oft-childish interplay between characters with much deeper and more complex relationships. The interaction between David (main character) and his Asperger's-afflicted biochemist Bob is a particular favorite of mine.

Also, the science is much more solid and the show's website actually has a section supporting or debunking the show's own scientific propositions on an episode-by-episode basis.

Oh, and David Sandström is what you get if House were allowed to say "fuck." Love that Canadian TV. And they've green-lighted season 4 to start next spring.

There it goes!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you quickly run to your window you should be able to see the joke flying by...

Re:There it goes!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you quickly run to your window, JUMP.

Re:There it goes!

[edittard]

Your mom's basement has windows?

Re:There it goes!

[Hognoxious]

Heck no, like any true geek I'm 100% Linux.

Next...

[Martian_Kyo]

Geek Action TOYS! Only instead of kung-fu grips they'll have carpal tunnel syndromes.

Re:Why does the media still call tech folks nerds

[riffzifnab]

Danger Will Robinson Danger!

From what I have read the word Geek and Nerd have different definitions even within the US. Here in New England the common definition that I have heard is a nerd is just a generally introverted person who is rather obsessive about something (computers, comic books, music, etc) geek is more computer fixated and is a sub-category of nerd. However I have heard that on the West Coast that this is reversed. So be careful with your terms.

Most cool guy in the world

[Random BedHead Ed]

"... when Bill Gates became the (richest), most aspirational, coolest guy in the world."

Even if you really like Bill Gates, that's a pretty bold statement. I certainly don't mean to disparage the guy, but I don't think he's the coolest guy in the world. There is no objective metric for such a position, and if you look at it relatively it still makes no sense. Cooler than James Dean? Cooler than Martin Luther King? Laurence Fishburne? Ridley Scott? Name a few thousand more well-known personalities and they're probably "cooler" than Bill, who isn't noteworthy for being cool, but rather for being rich, philanthropic and rather clever.

Re:Why does the media still call tech folks nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought that a nerd was highly knowledgeable about something somewhat practical, (computers, math, science) while a geek was highly knowledgeable about something less practical. (Star Trek, LOTR, D&D)

Numbers

[LnxRocks]

This article was probably only talking about new shows but CBS Numbers is a very good geek/need/mathwiz type show as well.

Now who doesn't want to be like Bill Gates?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Avoid the Big Bang Theory like the plague it is

[DrLudicrous]

Please do not watch this show. It is utter crap. I'm a grad student in physics, and am offended by the stereotypes it portrays. Sure, I'm a geek, as evidenced by me posting here. But I also like to have fun, know how to socialize, have had many many relationships with the opposite sex that for the most part have been positive, and basically am known for my personality rather than my career choice, JUST LIKE MOST NORMAL PEOPLE. Oh, and I really hate most Star Trek related things. I did enjoy (but am not a psychotic fan of) the original series (more for its campiness and originality), as well as the 2nd-4th movies. And I like Star Wars, just like any other red-blooded American male who was a little kid in the early 1980's. But that's it. Also, I love sports. Especially baseball, which for some reason seems to be common among physicists (maybe it's all those statistics). Put me in a bar on a fall Saturday or Sunday with football on the TV and I'm happy. Why can't physicists be portrayed for what we really are, which is normal people who happen to do physics? Look at Einstein! Witty, charismatic, and womanizer! Now that's a physicist!

Re:Avoid the Big Bang Theory like the plague it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't physicists be portrayed for what we really are, which is normal people who happen to do physics?

Maybe that's because normal people who happen to be physicists may not be the definition of "geek". For example, IT was once considered the province of geeks. But so many fell into the field because they heard they could make easy money. So the not-so-passionate business students entered IT, as did English and sports medicine majors. I'm not saying these are not valid degrees or that these people don't have a passion for computers, but the majority do not and entered it for the money. I imagine it's harder to "fall" into physics, but you get my point.

I've always thought of geeks as folks who are so dedicated, so passionate about a subject that they have no time for social niceties and "normal" stuff... I know that I will always be socially awkward, but it doesn't trouble me in any way. Who cares, since I'm having fun.

Re:Avoid the Big Bang Theory like the plague it is

[GregariousBoson]

Look at Einstein! Witty, charismatic, and womanizer! Now that's a physicist! This is not what most people see when they look at Einstein.

Re:Avoid the Big Bang Theory like the plague it is

[Steve525]

Why can't physicists be portrayed for what we really are, which is normal people who happen to do physics?

Because it's boring. Many (perhaps most) sitcoms have characters who are over the top. It's an easy way to get laughs.

Let's face it: science isn't interesting to watch. Generally you spends weeks/months/years fussing over lots of details in order to get an experimental result, which would still just be considered a boring detail to most of the world. (You think the world really cares about the Higg's Boson)? So, an LA scientist type drama would either be very boring or unrealistic. Probably the best scientist portrayal I can think of is CSI, and even here the science is fairly unrealistic.

Occassionally, you will have sitcoms which are just about normal people and their life and/or relationships. Most of the story takes place outside of work, so you could have one of these characters be a physicist as easily as a doctor, plumber, or whatever. I wouldn't mind if that happened, but I don't expect it to happen anytime soon. An engineer, maybe, but physicists are just too uncommon, and the stereotypes are just too popular.

Re:Avoid the Big Bang Theory like the plague it is

[monopole]

Throw in Feynman as well. The guy was the Hunter S. Thompson of physics. Anyway, in the right subfields of Physics there's quite a bit of cool visuals. For example I do 3D displays way cool. Folks doing big physics (Arecibo, VLA, Keck ) have seriously cool eyecandy.

In any case, most of the professions portrayed positively in TV: Law, Police work, Finance, CSI, and Fashion are painfully dull in real life.

Chuck, Big Bang Theory, and The IT Crowd

[Tipa]

Chuck and Big Bang Theory had free previews on Yahoo! So what the heck, I watched them.

I work in the IT department of a major insurance company, so I think I qualify as a geek.... plus I read Slashdot, and if THAT doesn't seal the deal, what can?

Chuck -- okay, if you're going to make a show about a geek/nerd/whatever, would it kill you to run the script past one? The premise: a guy is running from people with guns! And they're firing at him! If only... he... can... finish writing a quick email to his friend he hasn't seen since college. Hey guys, could you quit it with the guns? I'm writing an email here.

Cut to Chuck, who staffs a kiosk called "The Nerd Herd" in some anonymous warehouse store. If they were meaning to riff off Best Buy's "Geek Squad", then instead of Chuck showing his fellow employees about a porn star virus which effects a certain kind of laptop that can't possibly be important later in the show, he would be showing them how to pack it up to send it to the third-party repair folks who really fix the laptops for Best Buy.

Chuck's sister plans a disastrous birthday party meant to introduce him to real girls, but of course it goes wrong, so Chuck silently escapes, turns his TV on and look, there's an email... on his TV... and it has a password based on Zork. Supposedly. Now, every single oldschool game-loving geek would cheer if they read "You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a mailbox here." with Chuck. And they would scream, "OPEN THE MAILBOX!". But no. Calm down. It's not that.

So anyway he types in the answer, "use nasty knife on troll" (huh), and then that quick email turns out to be a montage of NBC's fall lineup in black and white.

But no! It's ALL NSA's and CIA's secrets! And since CHUCK has them, the NSA and the CIA no longer have any record of them whatsoever! In fact, the CIA (or the NSA, whatever) forgot that some general who was to address a conference in a hotel minutes from Chuck's place, was to be blown up by a terrorist.

See, they researched this out, spied everywhere, found out what, where, who, and when, and then this guy emailed the details to Chuck and then they ALL FORGOT.

So anyway, Chuck, Jayne^WAlec Baldwin, and the girl who was sleeping with his best friend from college whom he hadn't heard from since until he destructively emailed Chuck all the nation's secrets from his smartphone and then died^KChuck's future love interest saves the day by finding the bomb, getting to the DOS prompt (well, he says he does, but he doesn't actually), and setting off that porn star virus which stops the bomb... WITH OMG JUST ONE SECOND TO GO! PHEW!

So anyway. All the nation's secrets are now in Chuck's head, and the nation doesn't have them anymore. Somehow. Won't these secrets kinda get stale? Sure, he knew the date & location of this one general's assassination, but new secrets are going to be happening from this point on that he will know nothing about, right?

Anyway, the show is for idiots, about idiots.

Big Bang Theory -- a pair of repellant, smelly losers and their idiot friends, and the porn star next door who undresses in their apartment. Nothing to see here.

The IT Crowd (American) -- Moss (Richard Ayoade) will join Joel McHale (The Soup) on the American adaptation of the British series in February. I thought the first season of the British series was brilliant (or should I say, Brie-illiant), and the second season, without the IT focus, a little less funny... Dunno how the American one will go. I expect disaster.

Re:Chuck, Big Bang Theory, and The IT Crowd

[Joe Tie.]

plus I read Slashdot, and if THAT doesn't seal the deal, what can?

That's one of the things I've loved about the IT crowd, slashdot or fark often showing up on the monitors there during work hours.

Re:Chuck, Big Bang Theory, and The IT Crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

>I work in the IT department of a major insurance company, so I think I qualify as a geek.... plus I read Slashdot, and if THAT doesn't seal the deal, what can?

A lower UID.

Re:Chuck, Big Bang Theory, and The IT Crowd

[Tipa]

Oh, that's harsh :(

Having lost my geek creds, I return to my previous life as an office assistant.

Re:Chuck, Big Bang Theory, and The IT Crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

>Jayne^WAlec Baldwin

That'd be Adam Baldwin.

Re:Chuck, Big Bang Theory, and The IT Crowd

[LMacG]

What, no complaints about how the CIA and NSA don't actually drive around in LA shooting at people? I think Chuck is probably more fun at parties than you are.

Re:Chuck, Big Bang Theory, and The IT Crowd

[EvilSS]

I wouldn't count on seeing an American version of the IT Crowd anytime soon. They shot the live audience parts of the pilot and it has sat ever since. Rumor has it the new NBC boss isn't big on the show. Ah well, they would probably screw it up anyway. Hooray for bittorrent!
 
I was curious if all the anti-copyright stuff that you see in the background of the British version would survive it's Americanization.

Re:Chuck, Big Bang Theory, and The IT Crowd

[Kingrames]

I watched it and it wasn't that bad.

Sure, it's unrealistic. Did Tron or Wargames have realistic portrayals of nerds or national security guys?

If you're even remotely tech-savvy, it's probably worth watching the first episode. Let yourself decide whether you like it or not.

Re:Chuck, Big Bang Theory, and The IT Crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently the only idiot watching Chuck was you as half the points in your little attempt at a review were actually covered in the show. Nice try, but you're no Ebert.

Re:Chuck, Big Bang Theory, and The IT Crowd

[Tipa]

Well, I'm willing to give a show its fantasy premise. You have to do that. So I can give Chuck "its guy with all the nation's secrets embedded in his head, but despite being an invaluable and irreplaceable national intelligence resource, continues in his old life". I think everything else was dumb, but ymmv. Wasn't as bad as Big Bang Theory.

I thought Wargames was pretty realistic; his hacking techniques -- war dialing, social engineering, research -- were on track, he gained a ton of geek cred by having an Altair, and once you gave him the premise of contacting a self-aware computer, the rest of the movie felt right -- and hey, Fred Thompson!

Tron wasn't trying to be realistic :) it doesn't count.

Re:Chuck, Big Bang Theory, and The IT Crowd

[nobuddy]

I tremendously disagree on Big Bang. The dialog is excellent and hilarious! And those guys are definitely Nerds. If they can keep up the writing, I will definitely watch it.

Current shows too

[BiloxiGeek]

Can't understand how that article fails to mention current shows. SciFi Channel's Eureka is good geek TV fare and damned funny.

And there's always Doctor Who, reruns of old shows and the new shows are great.

Re:Current shows too

[kent_eh]

And Heroes.

I'm pleasantly surprised at how much I'm enjoying season 1 (missed most of it in first run, currently watching the DVDs). It's been a long time since a series can surprise me every episode with a plot twist that makes sense in context of the story (not just gratuitous messing with the audience).

I hope they can keep it fresh for the next season.

chuck is OK?

[ImTheDarkcyde]

you kidding me? I could barely watch Chuck! Every five minutes they're making some outlandish tech reference.

"yeah fingers so hurt from call of duty"
"lets go upstairs and play gears of war"
"we programmed our own zork game" (which loaded .zrk files, rather than zorks actual .dat's)
"the government smashed your harddrive which erases your email" (not too outlandish, some people might actually run their own email server...)
"here is an image made of other images, each a 1x1 pixel, which in turn house other images"

Re:chuck is OK?

[Aladrin]

You can't seriously expect them to accept real-life for the basis of a show about a guy who gets the entire CIA's database downloaded to his brain via an EMAIL, can you? It's supposed to be FUNNY as well as have action, and it succeeds with both. It's just geeky enough (programming your own text game?) to make it. You think doctors don't watch ER and House and think 'OH MY FUCKING GOD'?

And the email is very realistic. How many people do you know that POP their mail and even KNOW there's a option for 'leave the mail on the server'? Of course it's on his hard drive.

Re:chuck is OK?

[ImTheDarkcyde]

It's not like i expect my shows to be completely realistic, but something that wasn't borderline insulting to our intelligence wouldn't hurt.

Re:chuck is OK?

[Anonymous Coward]

In your case, it's not a huge insult.

They will never learn

[Anonymous Coward]

They cancel shows we actually watch and I bet they'll cancel one of these shows too. I've given up on good sci-fi, tech, geek shows.

and to think I can't even fscking stand the word

[Phaid]

If "the classic shape of the computer geek is over" then this quote

The influence of geek guru Judd Apatow extends well into the current season. He was director of box-office-smash outsider comedies The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up, producer of the blockbuster Superbad, and creator of the nerd-TV gold-standard series Freaks and Geeks, which ran for two years on NBC before attaining cult status. Many of Apatow's past projects are now being cloned for the small screen.

would not be in the article.

These shows are going to continue portraying "geeks" as Dwayne Dibley types, because the mainstream view of a "geek" is still a dork in an ill-fitting short-sleeved buttondown with acne, buck teeth, and his glasses taped together. If you think the picture of "geek chic" in mainstream media is going to transcend that stereotype, you're in for a disappointment.

Bill Gates is Cool?

[starnix]

Since when?

Bill Gates cool

[thorkyl]

I thought there was a movie called Kill Bill...

Do they ?

[Martin Spamer]

Most people (apart from the saintly) want money! However, most people have other aspirations as well.

Or do they want the things money represents or can aquire in the developed/capitalist western society.

I think most people are driven by more basic instincts and imperatives; freedom, security & reproduction.

Money is most readily available way to achieve those.

Re:Why does the media still call tech folks nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe it's different in the US...

Well, nerd isn't spelt nred here.

Aspirational

[Wisconsingod]

Aspirational is a word, and it makes perfect sense in that context.

Aspirational: "showing a desire or ambition to achieve something, especially self-improvement or material success."

Bill Gates aspired to become rich and powerful and create the best marketed products available on the PC Market. He had a strong desire and nothing was going to stand in his way. because he was Aspirational, he inspired others to also drive toward their goals, thereby becoming inspirational to those who wanted to be Aspirational.

Aspirational is an state in one's inner being, inspirational is the effect one has on another's inner being.

Don't knock a word just because you have a small vocabulary and haven't heard it before.

Re:Aspirational

[ascendant]

party pooper
=(



I was enjoying that thread.

Re:Aspirational

[edittard]

"showing a desire or ambition to achieve something, especially self-improvement or material success."

So how is that different from aspiring? It's unnecessary and pretentious and it looks terrible (and sounds worse) in that context.

But I'm sure with your huge vocabulary you love "incentivize" "transitioning" and adore anything that ends with "ationalnessitude".

Re:Aspirational

[Wisconsingod]

Simply put, Aspiring is a verb, Aspirational is an adjective.

Further more....
Aspiring based on the verb aspire, which uses the part of the definition "a desire or ambition to achieve something"
Aspiring is the Gerund form of the base, which changes the verb to a present participle, indicating that the action is taking place now.

Aspirational is based on the noun aspiration, which is very similar to the definition of aspire, yet has a stronger emphasis, " a strong desire to achive something high or great. Aspiration is also synonymous with ambition, which is used to define aspire.
Aspirational is the adjective form, which simply describes the person (Gates), and defines his continued act of aspiring into a state of being, in which he becomes Aspirational.

*......Come on, if you are going to challenge my grammar, actually challenge it.

And yes, I cringe at poor grammar, and I am guilty of it myself on occasion, but when perfectly valid grammar use is questioned, I feel the record should be corrected. Typo's also happen, but the making up of words can be a very effective tool to creatively display one's attitude toward a subject.

Re:Aspirational

[edittard]

Simply put, Aspiring is a verb

Nope. It may be derived from a verb, but many present participles/gerunds (which have the sanme form in English also exist as adjectives. Oh, and we don't capitalise gerunds in English.

e.g. Owning a television was considered de rigeur among the aspiring middle classes.

Have they watched it?

[Fepple]

Wired say: "it is a cheeky and wholly enjoyable romp through the lives of office workers whose first question is always, "Are you sure it's plugged in?"".

However, its "Have you tried turning it off and on?". If they get this running joke wrong makes me question the other reviews

Examples...

[antdude]

Kernel Panic in its intro.

Meh T-shirt in S2E2. ThinkGeek has the shirt.

EFF poster.

Beauty and The Geek?

[antdude]

How about the reality show, Beauty and the Geek? I am enjoying it.

Re:Beauty and The Geek?

[dargon]

Gathering up more fantasy material eh? ;)

Dennou Coil

[Joe Tie.]

If you don't mind anime, dennou coil is also a really well done look at some geeky subjects. In particular, it's one of the most fun looks at augmented reality that I've ever seen. All the characters wear glasses that superimpose information into the environment around them, and the plausibility of a lot of it makes the show really entertaining. Sure, there's a lot of fantasy mixed in from the start, and it increases by quite a bit later into the series. But even with that it's the most enjoyment I've ever had from fictional looks into augmented reality. Well, aside from Rainbow's End, it's the only one that wasn't a quick one shot.

And I did like Rainbow's End, but it didn't hook me on the concept of AR like Dennou Coil has. Rainbow's End showed why the concept would be useful, Dennou Coil showed how it could turn the world into a giant game. I mean cubes of water floating in the sky? I would love to be walking along, look up, and see a digital fish flying around.

Re:Dennou Coil

[Cold-NiTe]

I just wonder if it ever gets disorienting having walls and other 'physical' objects that aren't really there. What if someone places a digital extension to some construction scaffolding for a skyscraper. I hope those construction workers can't afford the glasses, otherwise work related deaths could skyrocket for them because of one goofy kid's idea of a prank. While the show presented itself as sweet and fun, and I loved it for that, my mind began to churn up scenarios of mortal peril at an exponential rate. Fake an extension to a cliff side? Create a false texture making people think a highway or road is empty so that they try to cross? False textures for stoplights? This is probably why none of the functioning adults in that show wear those glasses.

Re:Dennou Coil

[Joe Tie.]

I recall a couple places where holes in the floor were masked by the overlay, and there's also the example of the girl killed at the street crossing. I also really liked an episode where the kids totally removed the glasses while in town and wound up totally disoriented.

Part of me now really is quite interested in the idea of using a picture of a floor or wall as a weapon.

Re:Dennou Coil

[Cold-NiTe]

Now I'm certain that's why the adults are smart enough not to wear those glasses, or the contact variants. Deception is as strong a weapon as any, and there's no reason why independent malicious coders couldn't work this to that same advantage. Regardless I'd hate to be dependent on technology like that to the point that I was confused or lost without it. Sure I don't have the skills to survive without most of todays technologies, like most everyone else, but I'd hate to not even know my own neighborhood by my own eyes alone.

Jericho?

[bladel]

Wasn't this supposed to come back this year?

It had its soap-opera moments, but the writing was incredibly intelligent (for network TV).

Re:Jericho?

[JhohannaVH]

It will be back... just not until mid-late season. They have not announced a date for the new episodes to air - and it's only 7 episodes to start. :(

Perpetuating the stereotype

[Avatar8]

A few of you touched on this, but I thought I'd state it plainly: these shows are not celebrating geeks/nerds, but instead continuing to make fun of us.

Did Bill Gates earn the respect of the general masses when he became the richest geek in the world? Not really. People are in awe of his money-making skills, but I'd wager very few people would want him as a guest speaker, a co-worker or even a guest for dinner. I sure wouldn't.

Yes, there are nerds out there who live and act like these characters in these shows. Are they considered IT professionals? I don't think so. When is the last time anyone here actually took the advice of someone at a Best Buy/Frye's/Geek Squad/etc. ? IT professionals have pretty dull lives. No one would care to watch any part of our lives on TV. They end up looking like the mathematical savant protagonist in "Numbers," a fairly interesting, but mostly boring show. Hollywood's characterization of geeks is interesting, though, regardless of how untrue it is.

I consider geek shows to be the ones that appeal to us: "Doctor Who," "Battlestar Galactica" and "Heroes." I'll pass on all of these listed, though "Reaper" at least made me consider watching it.

Re:Perpetuating the stereotype

[stewbacca]

I consider geek shows to be the ones that appeal to us: "Doctor Who," "Battlestar Galactica" and "Heroes."

But these are show that, most importantly, are good. They appeal to people OUTSIDE of nerd circles in spite of the nerd stigma that is (incorrectly) associated with them. Well, not so much Dr. Who, but you get my drift?

Re:and to think I can't even fscking stand the wor

[Joe Tie.]

If you think the picture of "geek chic" in mainstream media is going to transcend that stereotype, you're in for a disappointment.

In particular because one has to really work hard to get a solid grasp of any science, and most people just aren't into the subject enough to do so. Especially at an age where the knowledge would really sink in and be most applicable to their everyday life. The result is a culture where almost everyone is surrounded by sciences and technologies they don't understand, feel a constant stream of intimidation as a result of, and really, really, want a reason to superior to the people who do. I think it's one of the driving factors for alternative medicine as well, "Those doctors, with their books. My mothers gut feeling is going to make a far better diagnosis!". Humans, as a rule, don't like feeling powerless to change their environment. And, increasingly, that's becoming the norm for all of us. It's not too surprising to find ill-will directed at people perceived to have more freedom to do so.

nerd culture? no thanks

[stewbacca]

the appearance of nerd culture on network television is a long-overdue reflection of real life.

I have to deal with incompetent nerds at work all day long; why would I want to come home and watch a tv show about them too?

Geek TV is the Spice network

[daveywest]

Living near Vegas, I know geeks have no interest in seeing other geeks. We lament the tech conferences.

Geeks and nerds don't spend their money in the casinos, they spend it in the strip clubs.

Real geeks watch Hot Choice, Spice or the Playboy channel.

Better show for Geeks

[Alzheimers]

Here's a better show for geeks: Brainiac: Science Abuse

All the fun of science (Explosions, Beer) with none of the stuffy lectures.

Pfft

[Pojut]

BRING ON THE NEW SEASON OF DEXTER!

Seriously. One of the greatest shows on TV.

Sarah Connor Chronicles...?

[frakfrakfrak]

Ow. My soul.

Re:Why does the media still call tech folks nerds

[Cold-NiTe]

"t used to be that 'geek' meant 'reject', now it means 'smart, technically inclined person who is likely to be rich and/or interesting'."

No, it used to mean that you bit the heads off of chickens at the carnival for a living. I don't care if you don't believe me, but that is the true origin of the word. As for what it means now, it essentially amounts to "You've been given a 'negative' societal label based on assumed differences between you and 'the average'." Thanks, I'll take that difference with pleasure. You don't even WANT to know the statistical averages for education, wages, IQ, etc. in this country. I'll take being ostracized along with fellow 'geeks' over that alternative any day of the week.

So sure, they can sit in front of their tv sets and laugh all they want. We'll even be laughing with the poor bastards. The only difference happens to be the most important one of them all; they laugh in terrible ignorance, we laugh in wondrous comprehension.

Ahh once again Meriam-Webster & Wikipedia come through for me, look at those last two definitions for Geek; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek. Just proves what I already figured. They may have created the stereotype, but in the end, we decide the definition. Praise to the 'Geeks' who wrote the Webster definitions and the Wikipedia article.

Re:Why does the media still call tech folks nerds

[dgatwood]

No, you've all got it wrong. The difference between a nerd and a geek is whether they look at your feet or your belt while talking to you in the elevator.

Nerd = socially inept genius; geek = genius with at least some interpersonal skills, if less than extroverted. Usually nerds have trouble interacting with non-nerds in any meaningful way (usually because of total disdain for the stupidity of others). Geeks, however, interact with non-nerds/non-geeks just fine (though many actively avoid interacting with people they consider to be idiots to avoid reaching the level of total disdain for the stupidity of others), and many seem downright extroverted as long as they aren't asking the non-nerds/non-geeks out on a date. (Most geeks still have trouble with that.)

Re:Why does the media still call tech folks nerds

[psxman]

You don't even WANT to know the statistical averages for [...] IQ in this country.

Er, wouldn't that be 100? IQ tests are normalized.

Re:Why does the media still call tech folks nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

No wonder I have such a hard time finding a job.

off base

[ansonyumo]

Dude, is this slashdot or frickin zdnet? Since when does Bill Gates get props here?

The less that I have in common with that guy, the better.

Re:Why does the media still call tech folks nerds

[zippthorne]

It's because they can't get through the word Aspergers without cracking up as if it's some kind of unbelievably undelicious fast-food sandwich. Also, that other thing you said.

Nothing on Torchwood?

[lokispundit]

With the exception of the IT Crowd (it's bloody hilarious!), and perhaps Pushing Daisies (at least the premise is interesting). The best new "geek" show I've seen is Torchwood on BBC America http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/262/about.jsp

It's got an X-file's feel; and now they're starting to build up their core characters, so the show is picking up pace...Tuesday's at 8pm

Re:Nothing on Torchwood?

[spectro]

Torchwood premieres on HDNet tonight. I guess the article was oriented to OTA TV.

Anyways, thanks for the reminder, just added it to my mythtv recording queue.

Mother Teresa

[scrad]

Hmm, attacking the 'messenger' without researching the message? I don't particularly like Christopher Hitchens either. However, I do like to know the truth.

They all apply to Mother Teresa.

Susan Shields was one of her sisters for 9 1/2 years and writes "Three of Mother Teresa's teachings that are fundamental to her religious congregation are all the more dangerous because they are believed so sincerely by her sisters. Most basic is the belief that as long as a sister obeys she is doing God's will. Another is the belief that the sisters have leverage over God by choosing to suffer. Their suffering makes God very happy. He then dispenses more graces to humanity. The third is the belief that any attachment to human beings, even the poor being served, supposedly interferes with love of God and must be vigilantly avoided or immediately uprooted. The efforts to prevent any attachments cause continual chaos and confusion, movement and change in the congregation. Mother Teresa did not invent these beliefs - they were prevalent in religious congregations before Vatican II - but she did everything in her power (which was great) to enforce them. Once a sister has accepted these fallacies she will do almost anything. She can allow her health to be destroyed, neglect those she vowed to serve, and switch off her feelings and independent thought. She can turn a blind eye to suffering, inform on her fellow sisters, tell lies with ease, and ignore public laws and regulations. "

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html

From Wikipedia: The Telegraph, an Indian daily, has referred to her as "the Saint of the Gutters", also mentioning calls for "Rome to investigate whether she did anything to alleviate the condition of the poor or just took care of the sick and dying and needed them to further a sentimentally-moral cause".

"In 2002, the Vatican recognized as a miracle the healing of a tumor in the abdomen of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, following the application of a locket containing Mother Teresa's picture. Monica Besra said that a beam of light emanated from the picture, curing the cancerous tumor. Some of Besra's medical staff and, initially, Besra's husband insist that conventional medical treatment eradicated the tumor."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/05/wteres05.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/05/ixworld.html

Dr. Aroup Chatterjee is the author of the book Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict. http://website.lineone.net/~bajuu/index1.htm
http://www.meteorbooks.com/

Letters written my Mother Teresa doubting the existence of God: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119059822005736983.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Many attempts have been made to get information about how and where money is spent to CURE people of various diseases or just WHERE it all goes. Tell me, why would an organization that accepts so much in donations not want to proudly show how it's being used to do 'good work'?

Re:Mother Teresa

[volpe]

Hmm, attacking the 'messenger'

I didn't attack the messenger. I asked him to back up his highly provocative (though not necessarily untrue) claims.

without researching the message?

When one makes extraordinary allegations, the burden does not fall on one's reader to prove those assertions. I've looked over the five allegations in the GP post, and none of what you write backs up any of them. You do cite a couple of sources, but you don't specify which of the allegations they pertain to (e.g. Chatterjee). In fact, the only statement you make that directly pertains to one of the original allegations (running a non-transparent organization) is merely re-iterated in your last paragraph with no references given. You respond to the other allegations by making statements that are not equivalent to the original allegation. For example, you talk about how she instills in her subordinates the importance of suffering as a means for them to prove their devotion, but this is not the same as making a clinic intentionally painful for patients. And you talk about how an individual attributed the cure of her illness to God's hand, but this is not the same as convincing someone to fake a miracle. The bit about taking money from despotic regimes goes unaddressed in your reply. (Though, if she's been found to take a few bucks from Pol-Pot and buy some shoes for a few kids, I might be willing to cut her some slack.) The Catholic Church's stance on condom use is well known, and I agree that it's misguided, but let's not pretend that it was all her idea and that the past four popes have been telling her to lighten up on that.

Re:Why does the media still call tech folks nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you have not seen the casting for the American version of The IT Crowd?

Diamond Age

[garyrich]

So, are you just going to watch Firefly reruns until George Clooney and Sci-Fi finish and run the mini series based on The Young Ladies Illustrated Primer? I empathize, but it may still be a long time

Re:Why does the media still call tech folks nerds

[j-cloth]

To summarize: A geek is a nerd who gets laid.

Placing my bets...

[HTH NE1]

This season I'm placing my bets early on what shows will not only get canceled but also never make it to DVD. These will be the shows I'll be capturing to my computer using an HD cable box and Firewire. Anything that's made it past its first season and/or had that season published on DVD (or and especially HD-DVD or BluRay like Heroes) I won't bother to record.

I'm betting that "The Big Bang Theory" will either be canceled quickly or otherwise never make it past one season. The biggest strain to credibility in this sitcom is the studio audience knowing enough quantum physics to get the jokes and laugh that loudly at them. I've seen the pilot.

Also, like the TV series Ferris Bueller, I expect The Sarah Connor Chronicles to fall... but not as hard. Maybe more like the series Starman, or Tracker . I understand the characterizations already break with continuity. Coming in mid-season is an established "Lack of Confidence"-labeled nail in its coffin.

I think Reaper may have a chance, or at least make for an entertaining one-season run. Tyler Labine continues to amaze me in finding good and steady work after portraying the delusional Croker in Evil Alien Overlords, but so far it was the only bad thing I've seen him in. Still, it seemed he was having fun doing it.

Fuck Bill Gates

[Master of Transhuman]

"Now who doesn't want to be like Bill Gates?"

I want his money, of course, everybody does.

But be like him? A major asshole like that?

I'd shoot myself first.

Unfortunately, a lot of people already think I'm a major asshole.

However, I'm not a major asshole LIKE BILL.

There's are differences even in assholes.

Re:Fuck Bill Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

But be like him? A major asshole like that?


Just because he's ruthless in business doesn't automatically make him a major asshole. Look at Larry Ellison, it took him years to become that much of an asshole.

Re:Fuck Bill Gates

[some old guy]

Calling Bill Gates an asshole is an egregious insult to honorable assholes everywhere.

Fall Geek TV Lineup?

[turgid]

If it's anything like the Fall Guy, I'll give it a miss. I haven't been 7 years old for a long time.

Re:Why does the media still call tech folks nerds

[dgatwood]

I't add the word "occasionally" to that... or at least one who potentially could.

"geek chic is going mainstream"

[Anonymous Coward]

First, I am not a geek. A geek is a circus performer who bites the heads off of live chickens.

Second, does this mean I might get a date this year?

to reaffirm one of your facts....

[Anonymous Coward]

I regularly sleep with one of my co workers. In fact I have slept with one of co workers in the last three places I've worked....

but then again, my wife has worked at the last three places I've worked as well....which is why I've been so consistent!

ah,....um.....I guess this doesn't really add to your point...in fact astronomy chicks do rock...in fact they don't sleep at night though I doubt they'd be interested in anything more than gazing at the stars..

Oh, and I could make a comment about the use of telescopes.....nah

Re:richest man... erhmm actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

... erhmm actually he's currently in the number two spot for riches some Mexican billionaire seems to have bumped him down a notch.
wadda loser! lol!
but to address to question who in the world would want to be the most poorly dressed boring loser of a billionaire in the world, i mean come on there are other far cooler ones to choose from even ones who are actually creative and have produced useful stuff!
geez!

Please, let it end!

[GameboyRMH]

From what I've seen, and I see from the comments here that I'm not the only one, the new "geek TV" lineup is insulting to geeks, and wildly inaccurate at best. Hopefully these shows will die off as quickly as they sprung up. I will say that I like the (British) IT Crowd, it's the only show explicitly about the geek lifestyle that's funny, accurate, and non-offensive. I've always found that the best geek humor is implicit "geek jokes" such as those on the Simpsons and Futurama. Sort of funny to everyone, downright hilarious to geeks. Another show with some good geek humor (well probably closer to gamer humor) is Megas XLR. Like most awesome shows it was promptly cancelled, and the series hasn't been released on DVD/BR/anything, but it's very easy to find the episodes online.

Re:Please, let it end!

[Joe Tie.]

I'd totally forgotten about Megas XLR, thanks for the reminder. There's got to be at least a couple episodes of it that I missed on first airing. Pity that's going to be it, in terms of new content, from that point on though.

We Need 3 Days of the Condor!

[monopole]

Robert Redford was a total 70's geek in that. Total bookworm, relied on knowledge and tricks to outwit his enemies. And he haxored the phone system just to call Houseman's character.

Re:We Need 3 Days of the Condor!

[dharmadove]

Great flic. I watch every time it comes on. A classic...

Reaper? Oh you mean Brimstone...

[st0rmshad0w]

Reaper was so much better back in the 90's when it was Brimstone. Peter Horton and John Glover where perfectly cast and the premise and plots were so much better. Shame they killed it. But I'll be stunned if Reaper lasts as long.

I would have expected more from Kevin Smith, honestly.

Rainbows End (note spelling)

[LionMage]

Just a clarification, the title is Rainbows End. The missing apostrophe is intentional; in fact, Vinge even titled one of the chapters "The Missing Apostrophe." (It's chapter 35.)

In fairness to Rainbows End, Vinge's use of augmented reality (not my favorite term for the concept, but I'll use yours for consistency) was more of a plot device than an end in itself. I should also point out that the Qeng Ho of A Deepness in the Sky used a "consensual virtual reality" visualization system to overlay on top of the world around them, something the autocratic Emergent culture was distrustful of. This plays up Vinge's libertarian views of technology as a force of social equalization and good.

I'll only start watching Chuck if...

[fuse2k]

...he says, "This is Unix, I know this!"

Re:Why does the media still call tech folks nerds

[fractoid]

Interestingly, wiki says:

The average IQ scores for many populations were rising at an average rate of three points per decade during the 20th century with most of the increase in the lower half of the IQ range: a phenomenon called the Flynn effect. IQ is, however, renormalised occasionally to keep the average score at 100.

otaku TV should be the model

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure Japanese TV in general is probably just as bad as American TV but at least they know how to make a show about geeks. And no, the answer is not make the computer hacking more realistic. What is required are references to a wide range of otaku obsessions such as old martial arts films, sci-fi, anime, hobbies, and most importantly the Yumiko Shaku Zaku.

So What... It's a good diversion

[dharmadove]

Chuck. I like it. It was funny and enjoyable. What do you want Reality TV? It will probably get cancelled like Studio 60 though. Watched it and MythTv'ed PBS (The War). Yes, House is great too. My favorite show.

• Just way too many techno-snobs on Slashdot...

Numbers ain't bad either

[dharmadove]

Nuff said.