Slashdot Mirror


Writers Strike Officially Over

CNN is reporting that the 100-day Hollywood writers walkout is now officially over. The new contract managed to snag two of the three major points the Writers Guild was looking for. The writers will now have "jurisdiction" for content created especially for new media (Internet, cell phones, etc) and will get paid for the reuse of content on new media when the studios get paid. "Leslie Moonves, chief executive officer of CBS Corp., told The Associated Press, 'At the end of the day, everybody won. It was a fair deal and one that the companies can live with, and it recognizes the large contribution that writers have made to the industry. [...] It's unclear how soon new episodes of scripted programs will start appearing, because production won't begin until scripts are completed, the AP reported. It will take at least four weeks for producers to get the first post-strike episodes of comedies back on the air; dramas will take six to eight weeks, the AP said.'"

499 comments

  1. First post by shentino · · Score: 2, Funny

    And I'm just hoping that my favorite shows like Numb3rs and NCIS weren't affected.

    I really don't care what happens as long as my shows keep coming and nobody gets hurt.

    Thanks to scuttlemonkey for posting my submission.

    1. Re:First post by ThinkingInBinary · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yay Numb3rs. It's cool to see that other geeks like it -- I'm a college freshman in CS, and I'm so tired of hearing that my classmates either haven't heard of it or think it's crap and not worth watching. Personally, I'm willing to suspend enough disbelief to enjoy the show despite the far-fetched uses of math.

    2. Re:First post by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Numb3rs is a really cool show, despite the silly name. And to top it off, the music is done by Charlie Clouser of NIN fame.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:First post by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yay Numb3rs. I just skip the middleman and rewatch Pi by Darren Aronofsky instead of watching its TV rip-off when I'm the mood for a math story, personally :)
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:First post by edwdig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've only watched (part of) one episode of Numb3rs, but that was enough for me to totally write off the show.

      The scenario was a guy robs a gas station. He holds a gun over his head and fires up into the sky. There is no video of it, just stories from the witnesses. The math guy rambles off a bunch of math terms, says algorithm a lot, then draws on a map, marking off a couple of places that the bullet was most likely to land.

      The explanation of what he was doing was just random words strung together that didn't make any sense. "A guy fired a bullet into the sky" is no where near enough info to find a bullet.

      After that, he went off into another "derivative algorithm sine cosine algorithm mean median algorithm integral algorithm" rant, so I changed the channel and never looked back.

    5. Re:First post by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      I havent seen the episode you describe but usually their math is fairly accurate if unlikely.
      It would never happen in real life but they do have someone who knows their stuff telling them what things are called and what algorithms are used.

    6. Re:First post by Deagol · · Score: 1
      Oh come on now... I haven't seen Numb3rs (no TV in years), but TV shows based off of movies can be great. MASH is a good one, but isn't quite the same, since the show is a continuation of the movie's world. However, Millennium, which was by design to be "an episode of Se7en every week", was an excellent show -- at least until Season 3. IMHO, of course.

      Original ideas from a book or movie can certainly be adopted and extended by the TV medium, and done very well. Like with most TV, however, there will be 50 stinkers for every decent one. Plots-ripped-from-the-big-screen shows are no different.

    7. Re:First post by wattrlz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While quite entertaiing that movie has almost nothing to do with math. If those are the kind of writers we're expecting to see back in business geeks can go back to not caring.

    8. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please. Based on movies. Not "based off of movies".

    9. Re:First post by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      While quite entertaiing that movie has almost nothing to do with math. Well, it was about math, religion, business and organized crime, mysticism, neurological problems, paranoia, etc... straight math would have been a bit dry. But be fair, there is a lot more math than "next to nothing".
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    10. Re:First post by suckmysav · · Score: 1

      Have got to agree with you there. Numb3rs has to be one of the most ludicrous techno-babble fests ever to show on TV.

      --
      "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
    11. Re:First post by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      I havent seen the episode you describe but usually their math is fairly accurate if unlikely.
      It would never happen in real life but they do have someone who knows their stuff telling them what things are called and what algorithms are used. If the formula you're using is sound, but the values you're plugging into the variables are random numbers you've pulled out of your ass, what's the point?
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    12. Re:First post by Idiomatick · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thats the only chance you get to use 99% of math. In made up scenarios where you fill all the blanks. Hell my math prof could only think of 1 actual use for sequences and it was a calculus aproximation method you don't actually use anyways. The mathies need to get it out somehow :( .... Also have you seen CSI before .... 'hey this smudge is yellow' ... 'i know who did it that yellow smudge could only mean one thing...'

    13. Re:First post by yabos · · Score: 1

      They actually have math consultants for that show to make sure the math is at least plausible. The part that's not likely is the short amount of time Charlie is able to do all of his amazing math feats in.

    14. Re:First post by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Sadly, the show has gone downhill with regards to the mathematic accuracy. In the first season, it was pretty great. All the math and algorithms were used correctly and would actually do the things that they said it would do. The biggest leap was that they always seemed to be able to put quantitative values on fairly subjective things, but if you accepted that then it all made sense.

      I guess they just started running out of plausible ways for math to save the day, and now it's just become more of a super-power plot device evoked through math terminology. I remember a recent episode where "math guy" was doing calculations using Venn Diagrams. Venn Diagrams!

      I dunno, I still watch the show but mostly for nostalgia for the first season I suppose. It's a decent enough cop show, and still more realistic than CSI imo. Of course the best 'cop show' is NCIS.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    15. Re:First post by hamster_nz · · Score: 1
      "A Beautiful Mind" was also quite good. Didn't paint maths geeks in a good light though, but nether-the-less an engaging math movie.

      It does seem that math movies require madness in there too, but they are far better than the rash of 'crypto' movies a few years back.

    16. Re:First post by popmaker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes! That movie is the reason I'm in mathematics now!

      That little speech he does repeatedly "everything can be represented with numbers, if you plot the numbers, patterns emerge, etc...". And when he starts again "evidence: The rise and fall of the Nile, sunspots cycles, etc..." it gives me goosebumps.

      The thing is... if people can't relate to that I feel sorry for them. But that movie made mathematical beauty almost understandable to a general public. The movie paints a picture of mathematics that is exciting, passionate, beautiful and dangerous. It's a movie every mathematician should whatch when he feels all those little uniqueness and existence theorems are getting a bit dull... because the AREN'T. I swear to god I sometimes feel like that guy. And it makes me feel great. Anti-social, paranoid, borderline sociophobic, manic-depressive... maybe, but you are cracking open a mystery of the universe! It made mathematics look almost - dare I say it? - cool!

      THAT is the true appeal of the film, however inaccurate the actual mathematical details might be. And while this isn't a contradiction of your post or even a logical answer to it, I think this belongs in the discussion.

    17. Re:First post by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Did they fire their consultants to save money? Because watching the first season, I found the math to be pretty much impeccable, but in later seasons it's seemed to really go down hill.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    18. Re:First post by springbox · · Score: 1

      Well, it does a good job of getting its message across: "Math is hard"

    19. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nether-the-less

      Huh? The word you were looking for is "nevertheless": http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nevertheless

      HTH. HAND.

    20. Re:First post by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Or "Based off movies"?

    21. Re:First post by syousef · · Score: 2, Funny

      or since we're talking movies....

      dy/dx (Movie)

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    22. Re:First post by syousef · · Score: 1

      Math is a beautiful thing. That movie was not. I was going to be a smart alec and post anonymously about how much I disliked the movie but I didn't think that'd be a very nice thing to do just so I could have a chuckle on a bad day (even though trolling seems to be an ingrained tradition here)....Instead,

      There's a book I'd like to recommend to you if math in Nature is your thing.

      Gravity from the Ground up.
      http://www.gravityfromthegroundup.org/
      http://www.gravityfromthegroundup.org/pdf/preface.pdf
      http://www.gravityfromthegroundup.org/excerpts.html
      http://books.google.com.au/books?id=P_T0xxhDcsIC&dq=gravity+from+the+ground+up&pg=PP1&ots=eYBnl6oBlg&sig=h6x74j7itqQs7AgsVN4kU39oaFQ&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=gravity+from+the+ground+up&btnG=Google+Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail

      It only requires highschool math - trig and algebra, and replaces the more complex mathematics with software (that mostly uses finite difference equations in place of calculus) so you'll probably find it talks down a little if you're a mathematician. I also feel the author's a little biased in his view of history. However the physical insights into physics and physical phenomenon are incredible. (Disclaimer: I'm only on chapter 2...but I've looked at the content and this is a book I've been waiting my whole life for. I have a Masters degree in Astronomy that I've never used, but we went light on the math - about as light as this book - and we never covered Realivity in the sort of depth I wanted to)

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    23. Re:First post by syousef · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I meant since we're talking math.

      Way to screw up a joke eh.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    24. Re:First post by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Aha! The specific example of this that I was trying to think of is The Drake Equation which, when supplied with random numbers pulled out of someone's ass, tells us that there are 10 extraterrestrial civilizations out there that we might come in contact with. Personally, I don't believe any extraterrestrial life exists, anywhere in the universe, and so far all the evidence backs me up (none has ever been found), but everybody seems to think my belief is crazy.

      Props to xkcd for refreshing my memory.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    25. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, Pi wasn't really about math.

  2. Crisis Averted! by Mickyfin613 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Future generations will look back at this strike as "the year we almost lost Hollywood and no one really gave a crap."

    1. Re:Crisis Averted! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      And here's the link

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:Crisis Averted! by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Honestly, I cared. I really cared. Why?

      It sent a goddamned message to the public. The fact that this was such a big deal for so many people was absurd; less of life needs to be focused around what happens on TV. My only regret is that it's over in time for the Academy Awards. I think not having that ceremony would've sent a strong message to people about silly and over-hyped this whole culture is.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    3. Re:Crisis Averted! by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Very true.

      To quote my good friend, "I've been bored lately, so I started law school, built my own first computer and learned how to use Ubuntu. The writer's strike is the best thing that's ever happened to me!"

      Really, didn't this strike seem kind of like a bad move. This is how I see it.

      Writers want revenue from "new media" sources (the internet, namely). The writers strike, forcing "old media" sources to stagnate - but "new media" sources continue to flourish. Individuals find more entertainment online than with the old media sources and thus move over in greater numbers.

      In other words, the writer's strike has only hastened the demise of the old media, and shown that new media can be entertaining without either the television companies or writers.

      I'm sure this won't kill television by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think that a lot of viewers' eyes have been opened to other outlets of entertainment, and outlets that are in fact less passive, and probably more rewarding as there is the "hey, I found this. It didn't find me" feeling.

      I do think that active (vs. passive) entertainment does actually appeal to people. Perhaps it's just that active entertainment in the recent past (television era) has required some physicality (board games, sports) - not so with the internet. I can sit on my couch physically inactive, but actually have an active mental experience.

      Maybe the writer's strike has made us all a little bit smarter?

    4. Re:Crisis Averted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly what I thought ... did anybody really notice?

      But I'm sure plenty of people did. People plan their lives around when their favorite programs are on. Hard to imagine. Hard to believe I used to do it also. Damn - I can still remember some of the schedules from years ago - X-Files was Sunday nights @ 9 on FOX, ER thursday nights @ 9 on NBC.

      Wow

    5. Re:Crisis Averted! by ccguy · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe you didn't give a crap, but some of us still enjoy TV (and have no problem admitting it) and are glad that the strike is over.

      It would have been interesting if some writers had started a joint venture with actors and produce something without studios, though.

    6. Re:Crisis Averted! by monoqlith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I agree that American culture revolves too much around television and other distractions, I think what this deal represents is much more than that. Organized labor has managed to mount an effective protest against executive management and work out a deal that favors both parties. That's the first time that's happened in awhile.

      This should give organized labor across the country a little bit of confidence.

      So it represents something big even if it is just the television and film writers.

    7. Re:Crisis Averted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "...less of life needs to be focused around what happens on TV..."

      No doubt. And, for the record, I didn't even notice the strike. I don't have a TV subscription or capture the "free" stations out the air. The 45%-48% commercial air-time pushed me over the edge and I said screw that.

      Three years of not paying a cable subscription has bought me a HD TV for watching movies.

    8. Re:Crisis Averted! by Otter · · Score: 1
      It sent a goddamned message to the public. The fact that this was such a big deal for so many people was absurd; less of life needs to be focused around what happens on TV.

      Your goddamned message was completely lost on me -- I watched just as much television during the strike as I did before, and had completely forgotten the strike was happening. Just last night, I happily watched the last period of the Bruins-Hurricanes game and the new episode of Anthony Bourdain Crawls Back To The Food Network. That there was no new episode of CSI: Tuscaloosa went completely unnoticed.

      Incidentally, don't *you* have more important things to do with your life than get worked up over how much television I watch?

    9. Re:Crisis Averted! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I didn't get the memo. Still I'd have to disagree with you. It wasn't that many people and it wasn't that big a deal.

    10. Re:Crisis Averted! by FUCK-U-MODS · · Score: 0

      "Organized labor has managed to mount an effective protest against executive management and work out a deal that favors both parties."

      I'm not sure I'd call "striking while the world fails to notice or care" an effective protest.

    11. Re:Crisis Averted! by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I see it as much less than the triumph of organized labor. The masses can always take over the executives if need be, and that's not necessarily a good thing. Living in NYC, I think of the times when the garbage men and subway operators basically held the city for ransom while striking.

      Rather, it's an admission of the changing environment the arts operate in. It's indicative of a realization of executives that the current technological climate is radically different than it was even a decade ago, and the business model needs to change accordingly. This is a triumph for internet transactions and dissemination of artistic works.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    12. Re:Crisis Averted! by morari · · Score: 1

      Really. I never noticed a difference anytime I happened to flip on the television. *shrugs*

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    13. Re:Crisis Averted! by timster · · Score: 1

      The fact that this was such a big deal for so many people was absurd

      Agreed! In fact, to make sure the message gets across, we should close down musical writing next. Society would be better off if there wasn't any new music being made, since we all know it's not important. And then we could get authors to stop writing, video game makers to stop making video games, sculptors to stop sculpting. Before long we'd DEFINITELY have a clear idea of what's really important.

      OK, maybe you don't like this particular art form, but what's interesting about the motion picture as culture is the way it requires so many players to put together. On the opposite side of the art spectrum we have an author or painter who works alone and creates something that's an expression of themselves, and there is a lot of value in that, but the collaborative art can have a lot of value too.

      Of course, 90% of it is crap, but that doesn't mean that it's a GOOD thing that this happened. In fact, in the end it will probably have a disproportionate effect on interesting and creative shows, as those sometimes need more time to establish an audience -- time that has now been lost.

      I know being a sourpuss can be popular here on Slashdot these days, but insightful it ain't.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    14. Re:Crisis Averted! by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      Not all forms of organised labour get to air their grievances on screen via the conduit of Letterman or endless news reports. Hardly a surprise that the TV writers' strike was all over the TV news.

    15. Re:Crisis Averted! by veganboyjosh · · Score: 1

      Living in NYC, I think of the times when the garbage men and subway operators basically held the city for ransom while striking.

      You may see it as ransom, but didn't the downtime during the strike make you think twice (or once) about what they're paid (or whatever else they were asking for before striking...)?

    16. Re:Crisis Averted! by San-LC · · Score: 1

      I'm sure everyone will take your advice as they watch Britney Spears make headlines for thinking babies can bounce on concrete.

    17. Re:Crisis Averted! by Otter · · Score: 1
      To quote my good friend, "I've been bored lately, so I started law school, built my own first computer and learned how to use Ubuntu. The writer's strike is the best thing that's ever happened to me!"

      That must be quite a selective law school your friend attends, where you can walk into the admissions office and say "There's nothing new on TV tonight. Can I enroll as an L1 in the middle of the year?"

      Is he going to stay enrolled, or drop out when the new episodes start airing?

    18. Re:Crisis Averted! by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Honestly, not having any new music for a while wouldn't be such a bad thing. People wouldn't be able to just latch on to the next cookie-cutter artist out of the box, and would instead have to explore their tastes and find something that they can actually listen to for more than three months worth of binge drinking.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    19. Re:Crisis Averted! by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      You really should rent TV shows to.

      There is a lot on TV that is better than movies, the ability to really develop characters makes a difference.

      Only watching movies would be like only reading short stories, and you are missing out on a lot.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    20. Re:Crisis Averted! by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Absolutely, and those people deserved to be paid more than they were (although, in fairness, both groups get amazing benefits from the city) but that doesn't make it "good." There's a reason why it's illegal for them, or teachers, to strike - they're so integral to the functioning of the society (and in the case of the WFC, the global economy) that we simply cannot function without them. That power has thankfully not been used to extremes yet, but there's no reason it wouldn't. Especially in the case of those in Hollywood, I simply do not trust SWG/SAG/DGA to always be so beneficent with their choke-hold over American interests and thinking. If the writers demanded double what they were, and one if not both of the other guilds decided they wanted the same, there'd be nothing produced here. There'd be such pressure from corporations and the public to get it over with that the guilds could probably get their demands met.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    21. Re:Crisis Averted! by Udo+Schmitz · · Score: 1

      As long as they didn't settle for a percentage of the profits ...

    22. Re:Crisis Averted! by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 1

      Is he going to stay enrolled, or drop out when the new episodes start airing?


      That's a good question. I've been prodding him to study IP laws and have introduced him to the EFF and the modern state of affairs that we are all to familiar with, but which most non-technical, non-"geeks" seem wholly unaware of, so hopefully he still hasn't got the wireless working on his Ubuntu system and remains unaware the strike has ended. ;)
    23. Re:Crisis Averted! by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1

      Sadly, Bourdain does not cultivate the massive audience that shows like Lost do.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    24. Re:Crisis Averted! by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      The NHL managed the same sort of mutually beneficial deal not too long ago, although technically it was management rather than labor who started the whole process.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    25. Re:Crisis Averted! by Stefanwulf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They didn't need me to care in order for it to be an effective strike/protest...they just needed me to not be watching when the commercials came on.

    26. Re:Crisis Averted! by veganboyjosh · · Score: 1

      That's the thing. Without teachers, sanitation workers, or several other key-to-functioning roles in our society, things quickly break down when they go on strike. With tv, there's some grumbling, and perhaps those in Hollywood who are seeking more will get what they want, but if they push too far, the public will look to other forms of keeping busy if the strike goes on for too too long. It's sort of a double edged sword, right? The writers know they have something the public wants, but they don't have something that the public needs. If they (were to have) dragged out the strike too long, the public would see the difference between what they want and what they need. Then when the realization hits, they don't care about the writers, since they've been written off, no pun intended...

    27. Re:Crisis Averted! by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "This should give organized labor across the country a little bit of confidence."

      Oh God, I hope not. While I'll admit in this case, it was a good thing....in general, I think unions are killing us in the US while trying to compete with business on a global scale.

      Look at the recent postings of losses by GM. The outrageous fees they have to pay for retirements and other union perks, is killing them. They cannot sell a car at a decent price with a decent profit any longer....and they're more shoddily made, due to unions having people in there that cannot be fired without an act of God. It is almost like a govt. job.

      Seriously....while I know the unions at their start helped make things right that were wrong, they have proved to go far beyond their useful place in labor relations, and have now been strangling US businesses. I'm sorry, but, a manual laborer should not expect $30/hour, and lifetime benefits...it isn't a special job, anyone could do it without formal education, but, due to job lock-ins, there isn't competition for that job.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    28. Re:Crisis Averted! by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

      It's funny, I didn't even notice. I just buy shows I want to watch on DVD, I don't even watch TV, plain and simple. I'd rather pay for DVDs I really like, and get to keep, than pay monthly for a deluge of commercials and ticker-tapes and 'bugs' during shows. If studios just released shows straight-to-dvd and TV was just a medium for advertising DVDs then I'd be perfectly happy.

    29. Re:Crisis Averted! by timster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I couldn't disagree more. It's tempting to look upon this huge landscape of art that's already been made and conclude that the old stuff is better, that so much of the new stuff is uncreative, and that there's no reason to make it anymore. That thinking would make this a pretty poor society. We need music, and even TV, that reflects what it's like to live in OUR time. We'll certainly make mistakes and there will be plenty of terrible art, but in a way making bad art is part of the process of making good art. It's like R&D for culture: you can't just make something good out of whole cloth, you need an understanding of what is good and what isn't.

      That isn't to say we should worship the new, but to denigrate it as you have done isn't useful, in my opinion.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    30. Re:Crisis Averted! by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I bet if the minimums went up the money would come out of other parts of the budget.

      If all the people in the various guilds got more at a minimum it would likely hurt those in said guilds getting 8 figures/movie or 6/TV episode

      Just like an increase in football (US) minimum wage would decrease the pay of those making more than it (Movie/TV cost is not a hard limit, but is probably similar to one).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    31. Re:Crisis Averted! by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      ...less of life needs to be focused around what happens on TV

      I agree with your opinion. Unfortunately, I think a prolonged writers strike would only encourage more bad "reality" TV. (Although, those shows are probably not as unscripted as they would like you to believe.) I do like quality television, so I wouldn't want to see it disappear entirely. But we could do with a lot less.

    32. Re:Crisis Averted! by spun · · Score: 1

      Not all forms of organised labour get to air their grievances on screen via the conduit of Letterman or endless news reports. Hardly a surprise that the TV writers' strike was all over the TV news. Yes, because management always enjoys giving a soapbox to striking workers. /sarcasm
      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    33. Re:Crisis Averted! by FUCK-U-MODS · · Score: 0

      "They didn't need me to care in order for it to be an effective strike/protest...they just needed me to not be watching when the commercials came on."

      Why weren't you watching? Oh because something made you not watch. Something you cared about. You viewing habits could not have changed for no reason.

      So when you say "They didn't need me to care" then follow it up with your claim, you are contradicting yourself.

    34. Re:Crisis Averted! by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1

      I'm not denigrating it, nor do I think we should halt it for all time. I simply think a little break might give people pause. Especially with music, certain forms of art are being created at such a prodigious rate that it's impossible to keep your signal-to-noise ratio up. There aren't any more Jimi Hendrix's, instead we've got two dozen 50 Cent's. There was plenty of crap made at any given time, but it's worth everyone's time and sanity to wait another six months or a year before releasing another album to make some really quality product.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    35. Re:Crisis Averted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This year's Golden Globes were great.

      No longwinded speechifying.

      It went very smooth:

            Here are the nominees ... and the winner is ... and that was it.

    36. Re:Crisis Averted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant. Reruns of older (better WRITTEN) shows are worth watching more than the diluted crap we get these days anyway!

    37. Re:Crisis Averted! by Zedekiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dear god, we're giving workers what they deserve, and find that employers aren't quite so well off and profit margins are lower! Forgive me if I save my tears.

      --
      What I wouldn't do for the ability to mod "-1, Plain Wrong"
    38. Re:Crisis Averted! by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      I think what this deal represents is much more than that. Organized labor has managed to mount an effective protest against executive management and work out a deal that favors both parties. That's the first time that's happened in awhile.

      Not what I saw. Seems to me the writers decided to draw their line in the sand, went on strike, let the studios cancel a lot of unfavorable (to the studios) production deals. Then, the writers withdrew their important demands, and accepted a me-too settlement similar to what the Directors' Guild accomplished with no strike.

      The writers' leadership was a mess for the early part of the strike, and they didn't consider the fact that blowing up a lot of deals was really in the studios' best interest. As far as I can tell, they didn't pry anything from the studios that they didn't expect to give up anyway.

      So all in all, I see this as a big defeat for the writers. Internet distribution wasn't the big deal in this negotiation; both sides knew that would need to be addressed. The big deal is that reality TV and voice-over animation didn't come under the WGA tent. That was the big deal, because it would have given the studios nothing to fall back on for programming during future strikes. By giving up on that issue, they've killed their bargaining power for future strikes. Just like they had little in this strike, because the studios were only too happy to throw out a parade of reality shows.

    39. Re:Crisis Averted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what does upper level management at GM make? I can assure you that it's nowhere near in line with what they actually deserve.

    40. Re:Crisis Averted! by The+FNP · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually the problem is that the Third World is _NOT_ Unionized. If Chinese workers or Malaysian workers were unionized, the costs of making the goods and shipping them halfway around the world, tariffs, duties, customs, shipping them to the warehouse, the trouble, the cost of translators, Quality Control, etc, etc, ad nauseam, would make it not worth the trouble to outsource your manufacturing.

      It's only when you can treat your serfs as the disposable Kleenex they are that the cost savings of the manufacturing offsets the increased costs of logistics.

    41. Re:Crisis Averted! by SoCalChris · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does someone in a low skill job deserve $30+ hour, full benefits, and a pension plan?

    42. Re:Crisis Averted! by weetabeex · · Score: 0

      Most people couldn't stand so many days on strike, unpaid, to satisfy their demands. Organization would be of no use if there were someone to be fed...

    43. Re:Crisis Averted! by xappax · · Score: 1

      The writers know they have something the public wants, but they don't have something that the public needs.

      It's not about the public, it's about the owners. The public isn't really affected at all by whether or not writers get a cut of advertising profit. The media owners/producers sure as hell are, though - and they're really the only ones the writers need to convince of anything. I think people are too used to looking at actions like this as a "protest" which is intended to swing public opinion. It's not, it's a "direct action" intended to get a specific group of people who really do depend on their work to agree to their demands.

      Without teachers, sanitation workers, or several other key-to-functioning roles in our society, things quickly break down when they go on strike.

      Guess we should treat those people well then so they don't strike, huh? There's not really another option in a free society - striking is simply declining to work, and you can't force people to work. That's called slavery, which isn't really viable any more for a variety of reasons. Face it, if you live in modern society, you depend on a lot of other people to survive. You probably have some power over them, but they have power over you, too. If you don't like it, become more self-sufficient.

    44. Re:Crisis Averted! by Avohir · · Score: 1

      its worth noting that that was one of the more absurd notions postulated in Atlas Shrugged as part of the dystopian future of no innovation...

      --
      To err is human, to really foul up requires a computer
    45. Re:Crisis Averted! by charlieman · · Score: 1

      They should make a movie about it!

    46. Re:Crisis Averted! by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I don't have cable either, but the rabbit ears are pretty nice if you can get a good HD signal (and your TV has a tuner). Many sports become much better in HD, and if nothing else, you get a couple of extra digital channels. Plus it's nice to see movies in full HD goodness.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    47. Re:Crisis Averted! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why does someone in a low skill job deserve $30+ hour, full benefits, and a pension plan?

      Why does someone in a high-skill job? They are both people, after all... Before you say "well, the market set the prices at..." let me remind you that most "high-skilled jobs" do not have market forces set their compensation. In fact, the union benefits are determined by a free-market, whereas the medical, legal and political fields are not. Executive compensation has other aspects that imply the executive's labor is not the sole reason for the high salary.

      Why should "full benefits" (assuming that, since you remove pensions, all that is left is health/dental benefits) be dependendent on having a job at all? Seems like a human right.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    48. Re:Crisis Averted! by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      My only regret is that it's over in time for the Academy Awards. I think not having that ceremony would've sent a strong message to people about silly and over-hyped this whole culture is.

      They had agreed awhile back to do the Academy Awards, so it wouldn't have been held as a press conference like the Golden Globes even if the strike had not been resolved.
    49. Re:Crisis Averted! by GreyyGuy · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, have you ever worked a factory job alongside people that got paid $30 an hour? I have, and sure- there is some plain grunt work in there, but for a lot of the people, it is a skilled job. No- not a "I went to college and know a lot" job. A "I can do this for 8 hours or more a day and not lose an arm or leg, and can make sure the product won't fall apart after it leaves me" job. Factory work can be dangerous, and getting bored or distracted can be dangerous for others down the line. Do you want someone making minimum wage with maybe a week of experience installing the safety features on your car? Or the brakes of the car that is going to be driving behind you on the road?

    50. Re:Crisis Averted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't need tv. try and imagine a society without broadcast television and see what immediate benefits to society as a whole spring up.

    51. Re:Crisis Averted! by zoltankemeny · · Score: 1

      The media probably cared more about the ratings they would get for reporting to the trembling, nail-biting public that their favorite shows would be halted due to the strike. They know American viewers well enough to bank on the fact that they would care just enough to watch news about it, but are generally too apathetic to actually getting involved.

    52. Re:Crisis Averted! by ThinkWeak · · Score: 1

      Plus, what would "I love the 2000's" have to air if we never made any more tv?

    53. Re:Crisis Averted! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "I'm sure this won't kill television by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think that a lot of viewers' eyes have been opened to other outlets of entertainment, and outlets that are in fact less passive, and probably more rewarding as there is the "hey, I found this. It didn't find me" feeling."

      I think you're probably referring to the internet as the 'new media', and I think possibly you WAY over estimate the number of people out there that view a computer as a source of media or entertainment. First...not everyone has a computer hooked to the internet in the house (a surprisingly large number), and those that do, probably don't use it for more than some emailing and occasional websurfing.

      Nope...TV is still #1 form of home entertainment.

      I didn't miss anything with the writers strike, but, I'm sure a LOT of people did...TV and movies are still the primary forms of mass entertainment in the US, and I doubt the internet is even distant second. At least not to Joe Average.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    54. Re:Crisis Averted! by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Why should "full benefits" (assuming that, since you remove pensions, all that is left is health/dental benefits) be dependendent on having a job at
      > all? Seems like a human right.

      We live in a capitalist society. You earn money, you don't `deserve` it. Human rights are just things people talk about - they don't actually exist; you can't touch them. Who's going to pay people who drive buses and clean toilets for their `full benefits`? There's no need - if they don't want those jobs, someone else will step in and do them. Form unions if you want - people who don't want to join unions or who need the money more will step in and do them. Only people who were genetically lucky enough to have the head-start required to be a top footballer, programmer, model etc are going to get the top jobs and the big cash - everyone else will have to muddle through as best they can.

    55. Re:Crisis Averted! by zoltankemeny · · Score: 1

      This is interesting because it reminds me of a point one of my lit professors was trying to make about the overwhelming quantity of well-written literature today, due to a more educated, writing-inclined population worldwide. He posited that there is so much quality literature being written that it is nearly impossible to keep up with reading all of it while getting into the same kind of depth you could when great books weren't being whipped out so numerously and so quickly. If the literate sector who chooses to read avidly can't keep up, what is the solution? Well, stop expecting to put every great artist on a pedestal, because there is no way any one person is going to get to them all. In the next few decades, it will be nearly impossible for an establishment to cohesively keep track of all the literature being published, so there will have to be some sort of breakdown in the system that gets to decide who's good and who's not. You can probably substitute music for this too. Of course, all of this is opinion based (with the exception of rising literacy rates) and in no way the "right" answer, just my (and his) two cents.

    56. Re:Crisis Averted! by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Why does someone in a low skill job deserve $30+ hour, full benefits, and a pension plan?

      I work in a union steel mill. The starting rate is $14 per hour. At 5% raises yearly it would take 16 years to reach $30/hr.

    57. Re:Crisis Averted! by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Perhaps in New York... Not elsewhere.

      I'm not sure about garbage workers, but teachers in Quebec are not considered essential services, and as such are allowed to go on strike. The cities don't grind to a halt during a strike.

      Transit employees are considered essential services, but are still allowed to go on partial strikes. During these frequent strikes, they eliminate all service except for rush hour and night time. It sucks, but again, life goes on.

      Firefighters, however, are considered an essential service. Last time they had a contract dispute, being unable to strike, they settled for painting all their fire trucks puke-green.

    58. Re:Crisis Averted! by Brad+Eleven · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ. GM is almost completely out of touch with what American consumers want. Have a look at their MPG stats, and at their reliability ratings. Then go back to their massive technology investments and make sense of how they spent their money vs. what they got.

      American auto manufacturing is a bad, bad joke. It wasn't that long ago that GM was still honoring Henry Ford's "never stop the assembly line" maxim by creating "fix up" areas where thousands of cars and trucks with known defects were pulled off of the line to correct these defects just so they could get to the end of the line. Meanwhile, the government sent Edwards Deming to Japan to teach them true efficiency management, and they listened to him. Have a look at how efficiently they've come to dominance in auto manufacturing.

      This is a broad subject. In general, I find it interesting that the auto manufacturers with the best MPG ratings are those in countries with no petroleum industry, and/or weak industry lobbyists.

      Regarding organized labor, there isn't enough labor-intensive manufacturing left in these United States for unions to make a difference--in manufacturing. And how in the world are unions competing with corporations on a global scale??? If anything, it's the other way round: Corporations are simply sending jobs to countries to sidestep talking to unions in the US. Sure, there have been and probably always will be abuses by unions, and we'll be hearing about them all the way--from the corporations. Notice how you don't hear so much about the corporate abuses. That's no accident. If you must look at it as a "two sides" issue, then each side does indeed have a vested interest in making the other look bad. Notice which one is set up to do the most efficient job. Then consider how much more productive the corporation would be if it focused on its core business instead of on damage control--or control in general.

      Trick question: Who manufactures more, the US or China? The US, but only because we're far more automated. And because we can count weapons manufacturing.

      Don't kid yourself. What's good for GM is not good for America. It's good for that multi-national corporation--but who's to say what's good for it? Not its executives or directors, apparently. I'd miss it if it went under, but I also miss affordable health care, privacy, and representative democracy.

      --
      "Press to test."
      (click)
      "Release to detonate."
    59. Re:Crisis Averted! by vimh42 · · Score: 1

      Something like that. I'm not sure I'd notice the difference if I watched TV (must less had cable/satellite).

    60. Re:Crisis Averted! by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 1

      ...and I think possibly you WAY over estimate the number of people out there that view a computer as a source of media or entertainment...


      Despite my desires to the opposite, in reflection I do believe you are correct. As an IT career, internet person I most certainly have a heavily biased viewpoint and have allowed my profession to skew my viewpoint (look, I'm even using technology to illustrate my technological biases). Still, I wonder if this strike had any impact on average (non technical) individuals' awareness of the computer and internet as an entertainment medium - there were, after all, many youtube videos posted by the writers.

      Still, I must be rational and agree with your viewpoint. It does appear evident that wost people still use the TV as their primary source of entertainment. Heck, even I spend my home computer time on the system hooked up to my LCD TV - the couch is just so much more comfy than an office chair.
    61. Re:Crisis Averted! by edwdig · · Score: 1

      The 45%-48% commercial air-time pushed me over the edge and I said screw that.

      Commercials are usually 7 minutes out every 30 minutes, or half the percent you're claiming.

    62. Re:Crisis Averted! by Maestro485 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why does someone in a low skill job deserve $30+ hour, full benefits, and a pension plan?
      What is with the superiority complex of Slashdotters? Who are you to say that labor jobs are low skill? Can you assemble an automobile? Can you construct a high rise, or even something "easy" like a house? Can you repair mass transit vehicles, weld steel dangling a few hundred feet in the air, or ensure that a jet engine will operate safely?

      Just because you can operate a computer doesn't mean you're any better than "low-skilled" people.
    63. Re:Crisis Averted! by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "Why does someone in a high-skill job?"

      Well, in general, a high skill job, is one that requires skills that most people do not have, and therefore is rare and in demand more, and commands a higher rate of pay. (I don't like to use the word salary, being a direct employee to me is like being a slave, but, that's another soapbox).

      "In fact, the union benefits are determined by a free-market"

      I'd argue that they are NOT determined by a free market. Without unions, someone that was willing to take a bit less could get the job. Union areas...well, I've heard that in some places and some jobs...you can NOT even be considered for a job, unless you are a union member. That is hardly 'free market'.

      "Why should "full benefits" (assuming that, since you remove pensions, all that is left is health/dental benefits) be dependendent on having a job at all? Seems like a human right."

      I agree...health benefits should not be a part of having a job. It wasn't always that way...I don't remember the particulars, but, I think it was some time after WW1 or 2...where employers for some reason, in lieu of raises or increased wages, offered insurance to workers...and it basically started from there. Frankly, as an indie contractor....I'd much prefer to be paid my bill rate, which I require to be high enough to allow me to make my own benefits. I like to be able to set up my own IRA's and sock money away pre-tax. I like that I can set up a high deductible insurance (for catastrophic cases)...and then set up a HSA (Health Savings Account) that builds year after year, and can also be invested into the market to make money...all pre-tax, and tax free in most cases. In the long run, I can come out far ahead of most people that 'pay' insurance premiums and co-pays all their working life.

      If they'd just let us more easily work this way....work in a contract manner, we'd be more protected (contractual obligations spelled out), we'd get paid for what we work (no more 80 hour weeks on a salary based on 40 hour weeks), and we could be in more charge of our own destiny.

      I agree...but, slightly differently...I think we could all be ENABLED as a right, to provide for our own health care. If we didn't have the govt. and insurance corps and HMO's all so ingrained in the medical industry as we do now...and doctors could compete with each other as they did in the older times (30 years ago or so)...we would have affordable health care, and people could save and pay for it.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    64. Re:Crisis Averted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does someone in a low skill job deserve $30+ hour, full benefits, and a pension plan?

      Because the USA government fucks things up so badly that private industry needs to take up the slack to make sure basic human needs are met.

    65. Re:Crisis Averted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your point is absurd. Organized labor is weaker in the US now than anytime in the last half-century. So how can it be responsible for crippling our global competitiveness? Also, of the other two major global economic powers (China and the EU, both of which seem to be gaining influence at U.S. expense), one is much more heavily unionized than the U.S.

      Besides, I'm rather tired of GM being trotted out for "Unions are teh evil!". Can you name one company besides GM that's being strangled by unions? I'd be inclined to say that GM's problems are caused by poor management decisions, specifically the decision to not put aside money to pay for what they knew were going to be mounting health care expenses in several years.

    66. Re:Crisis Averted! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Especially with music, certain forms of art are being created at such a prodigious rate that it's impossible to keep your signal-to-noise ratio up. There aren't any more Jimi Hendrix's, instead we've got two dozen 50 Cent's.

      How many thousands of bad folk singers were there when Bob Dylan was around? We may have dozens of 50 Centses, but only one needs to be great (if there is such a thing as great rap.) And greatness will emerge if given the time. Certainly, it would be best if only great art was produced, but given no art or overprodigious art, I choose overprodigioys. And that assumes that the bad artists don't inspire the good.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    67. Re:Crisis Averted! by MrMarket · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome back our Indecision 2008 overlords.

    68. Re:Crisis Averted! by monoqlith · · Score: 1, Troll

      Let's say we threw out all of our ethical frameworks, erased civilization and started over. Let's say we sat around a table to come up with a new set of rules for civilization.

      Every rational person at the table would agree that a certain set of rights belongs to everyone at the table. We might have to perform the experiment to see, but to name a few that I think would probably come up, right to life, right to live without torture, right to pursue happiness). I think right to health care falls under "right to life," since not having health care could very well bring about your death.

      When we refer to human rights, that's just what we mean. From an original position, these are the rights that would produce the stablest framework within which people are free to pursue their rational self-interest.

      Human rights might not be a "thing out there in the world," but they exist insofar as they can be rationally discovered and they can be universally upheld.

    69. Re:Crisis Averted! by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      To correct myself,

      When we refer to human rights, that's just what I (and I think everyone else who justifies their belief in human rights without recourse to a God that we don't all necessarily believe in) mean.

    70. Re:Crisis Averted! by Altus · · Score: 1


      They would have made a reality TV show about it if they thought they could get away with it.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    71. Re:Crisis Averted! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Well, in general, a high skill job, is one that requires skills that most people do not have, and therefore is rare and in demand more, and commands a higher rate of pay.

      Except for doctors, lawyers, politicans and executives which have legal resrictions against competition (or in the case of executives, other non-free market forces), that indicate that their skills and the value of their work are not the primary determinant. What's a counterexample?

      I'd argue that they are NOT determined by a free market. Without unions, someone that was willing to take a bit less could get the job. Union areas...well, I've heard that in some places and some jobs...you can NOT even be considered for a job, unless you are a union member. That is hardly 'free market'.

      But that's a natural evolution of the free market. Not only must you pay $X for all of us to work for you, but you cannot hire anyone who is not part of our group AND SIMULTANIOUSLY people from our group. It's not a law, it's a negotiated result.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    72. Re:Crisis Averted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's tempting to look upon this huge landscape of art that's already been made and conclude that the old stuff is better,


      That's an illusion that's easy enough to fix. Watch a lot of old media, and compare it to modern media. Watch a lot of old movies (not just a handful of 4 star old movies), then compare them to new movies. Then rewatch the old generation of Star Trek, and compare them to *gasp* Enterprise. Or go rewatch the old generation of Battlestar Galactica and compare it to the new generation. Nostalgia may do an excellent job of taking us to a happy fantasy land, but it doesn't seem to be very accurate.
    73. Re:Crisis Averted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But apparently the proofreaders are still on strike...

      Oh, the irony...

      It's

      writers'

      with an apostrophe!

    74. Re:Crisis Averted! by spook+brat · · Score: 1

      It's tempting to look upon this huge landscape of art that's already been made and conclude . . . that there's no reason to make it anymore. That thinking would make this a pretty poor society.
      While I agree with you, there is a disturbing trend in modern society to go to the other extreme: ignore the past entirely and only focus on new works. Society is already being impoverished by copyright law preventing works from entering the public domain. If Big Media (TM) had its way then making a derivative of any work "owned" by them would require their permission (gained by licensing fee) for the rest of eternity. This has the potential to create a chilling effect on music, film, and literature similar to the one patent law is currently having on software. I don't want to live in a world where the works of the past are forgotten by new artists because they're all stored in DRM-laden (and perpetual-copyright-encumbered) corporate vaults instead of public libraries.
      --
      Travel the Galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... ...and kill them - http://schlockmercenary.com
    75. Re:Crisis Averted! by Cigarra · · Score: 1

      Let's say we threw out all of our ethical frameworks, erased civilization and started over. Let's say we sat around a table to come up with a new set of rules for civilization.
      Every rational person at the table would agree that a certain set of rights belongs to everyone at the table.
      Yep, that's been thought of before. FTWA:

      In the state of nature, it might be argued that certain persons (the strong and talented) would be able to coerce others (the weak and disabled) by virtue of the fact that the stronger and more talented would fare better in the state of nature. This coercion is sometimes thought to invalidate any contractual arrangement occurring in the state of nature. In the original position, however, representatives of citizens are placed behind a veil of ignorance, depriving the representatives of information about the individuating characteristics of the citizens they represent. Thus, the representative parties would be unaware of the talents and abilities, ethnicity and gender, religion or belief system of the citizens they represent. As a result, they lack the information with which to threaten their fellows and thus invalidate the social contract they are attempting to agree to.

      It makes sense, IMHO.

      --
      I don't have a sig.
    76. Re:Crisis Averted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they're your comrades and you should care because an injustice against them is an injustice against you. And as I type that, I am in the National Right to Work Committee headquarters, in rented space at the end of the hall, working for another group that pays me $14.75 an hour with no benefits and pretty much laughs about it. We have a $4,000,000 budget and 10 employees - they could afford more.

      I don't have a "low skill" job - I write and edit, do layout and graphic design... I majored in English at an expensive school. Lately I've become a fifth column in this place because being surrounded by scabs and idiots, I realize that so-called "conservatives" and more specifically, the fiscal variaty, had lied to me and that "socialism" does not equal "stalinism" and I'd be better off working for the AFL-CIO than aiding and abetting their enemies.

    77. Re:Crisis Averted! by eh2o · · Score: 1

      Actually studies have shown that green vehicles are more visible than red. Peak wavelength luminous efficacy of the human retina is around yellow-green. In addition, red appears as black for protanomalous observers (about .5% of the population).

      So they may have actually been correcting a technical mistake in the traditional color of the fire engine.

    78. Re:Crisis Averted! by qoncept · · Score: 1

      And now we won't need to worry about anyone changing a light bulb that isn't in their contract. Or, if it is in their contract, they'll be sure to have the correct form filled out first. I've never seen a union get anything useful for the people that need it most, but they sure can do harm to the industry that creates their jobs. In a business class about 4 years ago (I can't remember what class it was, but it doesn't matter), we discussed a shrimpers union that had just scored some big deal. A deal that I argued would ultimately move their jobs to Southwest Asia.

      --
      Whale
    79. Re:Crisis Averted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me the script you wrote for a show actually have on the air, then get back to me about "low skill". kthxbye.

    80. Re:Crisis Averted! by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      Benefits starting being offered because, at the time, companies did not have to count future benefits (like retirement, or future healthcare) against their current bottom line. So they were like free money during negotations - you could promise the moon, but still show your stockholders at the end of the year that you were making nice profits.

      By the time laws were passed to change this, US automakers had amassed so much debt in pensions that they could barely afford their work.

      However, I did read an article on this recently saying that while the pensions add to the price of a car (I think it averaged out to around $1,000 per car difference), that wasn't the only major disparity between manufacturers. Toyota, for example, had a much higher portion of the costs of their cars spent on research and development - ie, they were spending more to develop better cars. I think it shows a bit.

    81. Re:Crisis Averted! by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1

      I can't say I agree with the determination of teachers as "non-essential" but being essential doesn't stop anyone, just discourages them. If they strike, they face hefty fines for each day of the strike.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    82. Re:Crisis Averted! by es330td · · Score: 1

      This should give organized labor across the country a little bit of confidence. It should do no such thing. Many unions are collections of fundamentally replaceable people. Most of the Indians/Latinos/insert immigrant group here can be taught to perform most of the unionized skills like plumbing, automobile assembly,etc. These people create original material. Nobody can be "taught" to be a creative writer. You either are or you are not. Many unionized trades, while skilled, do not represent fundamental creation like writers do and there was only so much time that the public would put up with another lame reality program before it wrote off TV altogether.
    83. Re:Crisis Averted! by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1

      You DO have a human right to health care, the question is whether or not anyone ELSE is somehow obligated through that right to shell out money to pay for YOUR health care. You've taken something that used to be enshrined to an individual to protect their autonomy, and turned it into something that creates a dependent relationship between two people, one subservient to the other's needs. It's in effect an unequal situation, more akin to slavery and not a right at all.

      I have a right to free speech, but that does not imply that anyone has an obligation to listen to me. If you want health care, buy it. If you can't afford it, it sounds harsh, but it's not my job to help you exercise your right to be healthy, just to not actively violate it. If you think that a better system would be that everyone pools money together so that everyone can get health care, that's maybe a good idea, but I don't believe that it's a human rights issue. All kinds of good ideas are legally mandated that are not human rights issues.

    84. Re:Crisis Averted! by syrion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...because everyone who is expected to live in an area must be paid in accordance with the cost of living in the area. If your garbage men can't afford to live near where they work, they will have to move farther away which will cause them to financially collapse when the price of fuel rises. Remember, pay is relative to location. $30/hr. is excellent pay out in the sticks, but if you live in New York it's not so much--and it's not like you can drive out to Iowa to buy groceries.

      If you don't pay people a wage that will allow them to live with some measure of decency, you get unrest. Unrest is a bad thing. (Strikes are just about the most positive way unrest manifests.)

      Furthermore, "deserve" is an interesting word. What does anyone "deserve?" The only reason most of us in the United States (and Europe, etc.) can have the standard of living that we do is because we had the incredibly good luck to discover that you can use "rock oil" for a lot of things. Weirdly enough, that rock oil mostly occurs underneath populations that maybe aren't so fortunate.

      Think about it like this: you might not think garbage men and other low-skill workers "deserve" a living wage or a pension if you are an Objectivist or a person of like persuasion, but you also deserve nothing. You don't deserve to not starve to death. "Deserts" are a human conceit. It's a silly argument to say that "you could have been born in Sudan" or something similar, because you couldn't have (you wouldn't be yourself), but note that the majority of people are born in vastly less comfortable positions than people in the West.

    85. Re:Crisis Averted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im not sure what person does not have a right to health care. You walk into a doctors office, you get your prescription, you pay your bill. Just because you have to pay for it, does not mean you dont have a right to it. Your logic is twisted. Just because it is not free, does not mean you dont have a right to it. Using your logic, what about food? People need to eat to survive. And what about a car? People need cars to drive themselves to the doctor, should they have a right to a free car also? What about homes? Should we give your home over to someone who does not have one so they do not die from the cold? Or how about force you to pay for it? I need a house, will you buy me one or should I ask the government to take money from your salary to buy me one? Its my right isnt it?

      What we as a society dont have the right to do, is steal from those who produce, to buy votes from those who dont. That is all a re-distribution of wealth system is, a way to sway voters. This is extremely dangerous for any democracy, when you give those who seek political power access to the public treasury.

      Take care of yourself, your family, and do your best to help your community. Lets put the faith back into the hearts and minds of our public and get the government out of our schools, our doctors offices, our homes, our marriages, our offices.

    86. Re:Crisis Averted! by Zedekiah · · Score: 1

      You seem to have missed the difference between "This is how it is" and "This is how it should be". We only have one life, and it should not be some sort of lottery that determines whether we spend it miserable. THAT is entirely artificial, and THAT we can change.

      --
      What I wouldn't do for the ability to mod "-1, Plain Wrong"
    87. Re:Crisis Averted! by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up! Not to mention that screen writing requires an immense amount of skill and experience, and the gap between a good script writer vs. a crappy one is IMHO probably larger than the gap between a crappy code monkey vs. a genius coder.

      Just because they use pen/paper doesn't make their job any less demanding than ours, pounding out code.

    88. Re:Crisis Averted! by AiToyonsNostril · · Score: 1

      America? Every media in Europe is following that strike - even the small countries your president cannot pronounce. Our national news announced the end of the strike way before it got on Fark and just a little after CNN reported it. 45 years of having to endure communism and look how the pendulum has swung so swiftly...

      --
      "I'm not good. I'm not nice. I'm just right."
    89. Re:Crisis Averted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a "low skill" job - I write and edit, do layout and graphic design... Are you serious? You consider that "high skill"? Ha!

      [snip long, rambling whine about how much it's life sucks]

      I'd be better off working for the AFL-CIO than aiding and abetting their enemies. Hey, maybe they'll let you handout fliers to illegal aliens from Mexico? I bet you could even design them yourself!

      That's about all you'd be qualified for, man.

      Sorry. ;D
    90. Re:Crisis Averted! by fyrewulff · · Score: 1

      AC, meet OSHA.

      OSHA, AC.

      --
      "We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
    91. Re:Crisis Averted! by fyrewulff · · Score: 1

      That works both ways. If the corrupt unions weren't overpricing labor, companies would have no reason to outsource to China.

      --
      "We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
    92. Re:Crisis Averted! by big_paul76 · · Score: 1

      "Look at the recent postings of losses by GM."
      So it's being too good to their workers that is ruining GM?

      I guess then, that Toyota and Honda must be using exclusively 3rd-world slave labor to design, make, ship, and sell their cars, 'cause they don't seem to be having the same sort of problems. It couldn't possibly be the result of lousy management and nonexistent leadership or insanely generous executive compensation, even in years where the company teeters on the brink?

      "I'm sorry, but, a manual laborer should not expect $30/hour, and lifetime benefits..."


      Really, ok, well then what do you think _is_ fair for a company where senior management earn seven-figure salaries not counting benefits and stock options? $20/hour? $10/hour? In most US cities, anything less than $15-20/hour probably puts you below any measure of 'poverty line' that you like to measure poverty.

      The other side of that "I'm sorry, but, a manual laborer should not expect $30/hour," idea seems to suggest that, because somebody's job is low-skilled, therefore they need to resign themselves to a life of grinding poverty.

      Are you comfortable with that? What about the macro-economic effects of that? Or maybe, an attitude like Henry Ford's "I want my workers to make more money so they'll buy more of my cars" is better? 'Cause a country made up of people making $10/hour make very poor consumers.
      --
      The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
    93. Re:Crisis Averted! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Except for doctors, lawyers, politicans and executives which have legal resrictions against competition (or in the case of executives, other non-free market forces), that indicate that their skills and the value of their work are not the primary determinant. What's a counterexample?"

      Where do you get that doctors and lawyers have legal restrictions against competition???? I know doctors, and they all are in competition for patients and referrals, etc. No legal restriction on what they can charge a person. My Uncle used to be an ENT, and he'd charge usually based on ability to pay. He was good, and could command a premium over other ENT's in the area. Lawyers? hell, I see them on tv everyday, competing for your dollars in accident cases. Not sure what you mean about politicians...kind of a different category, they do compete for votes....and executives....sure, they compete for jobs. Please explain what legal restrictions are on those jobs you listed above??

      But that's a natural evolution of the free market. Not only must you pay $X for all of us to work for you, but you cannot hire anyone who is not part of our group AND SIMULTANIOUSLY people from our group. It's not a law, it's a negotiated result."

      In a free market, the employer could hire anyone he wanted....that is not a natural evolution, that is having artificial boundries placed on the market. If an employer wished to stop being a union shop, and was able to hire whomever he wanted....he should be able to. The union worker displaced thusly, well, he could quit the union and go back to work and negotiate on his own. But, that doesn't happen. Free market also means free will on both sides of the employment equation. I do believe that there are laws out there that force unions in some areas, or at least help to entrench them and skew the 'free market' for jobs/salaries.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    94. Re:Crisis Averted! by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      Yes but a strike isn't that easy to organise*. You have to have a lot of people who really want change badly enough to spend their own time and energy on a common cause. That's heavy politics, that is.

      *Except here in Australia, of course.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    95. Re:Crisis Averted! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Besides, I'm rather tired of GM being trotted out for "Unions are teh evil!". Can you name one company besides GM that's being strangled by unions?"

      Well, how about the opposite example? Look at Wal-Mart. You may not agree with eveything they do, but, by not being unionized, you can't argue that it has helped them to become pretty much the largest retailer in the world.

      No one holds a gun to an employee's head to work an any job.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    96. Re:Crisis Averted! by KatchooNJ · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I saw that Simpsons too. Good episode. ;)

      --
      "Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
    97. Re:Crisis Averted! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I don't remember the particulars, but, I think it was some time after WW1 or 2...where employers for some reason, in lieu of raises or increased wages, offered insurance to workers...and it basically started from there.

      It started in WW2. Government-mandated wage and price controls went into effect, so health insurance was offered as a way to sweeten the pot to get skilled workers. And after the War, when the wage and price controls were lifted, people were used to health insurance, and it felt like a pay cut to lose it, so it stayed with us.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    98. Re:Crisis Averted! by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      They promised those perks to them so they would not have to pay them a fair wage 20 years ago.

      The executive salary of the top five executives at most of these failing car companies would pay for fair wages for most of the employees. (You could even still leave $500 grand a year for each executive).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    99. Re:Crisis Averted! by mugnyte · · Score: 1


        Hardly. Toxins, unknown safety precautions, and after-the-fact disclosure of shortcuts all make unions one the few ways "productivity for productivity's sake" is kept in check. The other is lawsuits. History is rich with examples where an unchecked corporation was not acting within safe guidelines for the public, and unions, investigative journalists, class-action lawsuits, whistle-blowers are the front line for what eventually becomes law.

    100. Re:Crisis Averted! by sandmaninator · · Score: 1

      I prefer to be treated like a silk handkerchief.

    101. Re:Crisis Averted! by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      Pfah.  Unions are not killing the country--just the car industry.

      While I agree that the car industry unions took it too far for a while, what we badly need is more unions, not less.

      Or do you think fry cooks are fairly paid and treated?  Or retail clerks?  Or the teams of guys that mow lawns at apartment complexes and office buildings?  Or almost any other blue collar work?

      If you work 40 hours a week, you ought to be paid enough to live--period.  And that lack of living wages is what is killing the country.

    102. Re:Crisis Averted! by big_paul76 · · Score: 1

      "Why does someone in a low skill job deserve $30+ hour, full benefits, and a pension plan?"


      Uh, couldn't I turn that around and say "why does someone in a low-skilled job deserve to be condemned to a life of grinding poverty"?

      Never mind the macroeconomic effects. A society made of of increasing numbers of $10/hour workers makes for an economy in the crapper.
      --
      The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
    103. Re:Crisis Averted! by Cederic · · Score: 1


      Plus the commercials voiced over the credits, plus the commercials that overlay the bottom 12% of the screen, plus the commercials built into the program.

      Even discounting those, over 23% commercials would drive me away from TV. Indeed, I watch live sport (45-50 minutes contiguous football without a commercial), films (entire film with no commercials - beyond the product placement, of course) and things on the BBC (organisation commercials and the very occasional political party ad only). And that's with the UK's far less than 7 minutes every half hour of commercials.

      Forget the precision of his estimate, his point is still very valid.

      Back on topic, the only impact of the writers strike I noticed here in the UK was the reporting of it on the news. Didn't seem such a big thing, and if it's reduced the amount of hollywood and tv dross being produed this year then that can only be a good thing.

    104. Re:Crisis Averted! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Where do you get that doctors and lawyers have legal restrictions against competition????

      Go try selling your legal/medical/accounting services. Unless you have the right crednetials (which are not simply based on demonstrating competency/skill) it is illegal.

      Not sure what you mean about politicians...kind of a different category, they do compete for votes

      They set their own salary. While there has never (to my knowledge) been massive abuse of this power, notice the Congress's sefl-anointed raise every year (for instance). As I will address in detail in response to your next point competition != free market forces.

      ..and executives....sure, they compete for jobs.

      Sure they compete. However, they do not compete by lowering their demanded salary. To say that market forces and/or what specific CEOs are willing to work for drives CEO salaries is ridiculous. Lottery players (or raffle players, to ensure exactly one winner), all compete over a new car. That doesn't mean that one "deserves" the new car and others don;t.

      In a free market, the employer could hire anyone he wanted....that is not a natural evolution, that is having artificial boundries placed on the market. If an employer wished to stop being a union shop, and was able to hire whomever he wanted....he should be able to.

      They can.

      The union worker displaced thusly, well, he could quit the union and go back to work and negotiate on his own. But, that doesn't happen.

      Because it's better for that worker to stay a member of the union and work for someone else.

      I do believe that there are laws out there that force unions in some areas, or at least help to entrench them and skew the 'free market' for jobs/salaries.

      There are laws out there that limit unions power. However, no laws help unions or entrench them (with the exceptions of those I listed in my response to your "skilled labor" question).

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    105. Re:Crisis Averted! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Or do you think fry cooks are fairly paid and treated? Or retail clerks? Or the teams of guys that mow lawns at apartment complexes and office buildings? Or almost any other blue collar work?

      Yes I do. I've been there and done that myself....I washed dishes, waited tables, bartended, sold retail....this was during the years I was going to school to enable myself to get a 'real job'.

      If you work 40 hours a week, you ought to be paid enough to live--period. And that lack of living wages is what is killing the country."

      I worked and was easily able to support myself. It is one thing to make a living wage....however, just a living wage does not entitle you to cable tv, HD TV's...satellite, and nice shiny cars, etc. You *can* live on the wages paid on the jobs you listed above, but, that isn't gonna give you much in the way of $$ for luxuries. And you don't have a 'right' to those....they have to be earned. What is killing this country, is people making living wages, but, expecting luxuries too, and charging themselves into oblivion with no hope of ever getting out of the debt.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    106. Re:Crisis Averted! by lubricated · · Score: 1

      except that unlike when you pound out code, they want to keep getting paid for work they have already done.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    107. Re:Crisis Averted! by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      So do you, as a coder. When you create a piece of software you want to continually get paid for it each time someone wants a copy, no?

      But wait, you coded that app 6 months ago! You greedy bastard, how dare you desire profit for something you have already done?!

    108. Re:Crisis Averted! by lubricated · · Score: 0

      > Where do you get that doctors and lawyers have legal restrictions against competition?

      a. there's a test you have to pass, increasingly tests are more about limiting membership then insuring core skills.
      b. You can't own a law firm unless you are a lawyer. So you don't get corprotization of lawyer, you can't get a cheap wall mart lawyer.
      c. doctors NEVER display prices. They charge insurance companies less then cash paying customers. When was the last time you saw a list of a bunch of surgeries and their prices.
      d. polititcians have effectively blocked third parties.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    109. Re:Crisis Averted! by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      Indeed. In addition, the unions did this to themselves. Rather than demand/settle for a fully funded pension (similar to an endowment) they agreed to basically an IOU from GM, etc. This is one reason why I'd never want to belong to a union. They can be just as good at screwing over the workers as their employers.

    110. Re:Crisis Averted! by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      It doesn't help that if you try to form a union the local oligarchy runs you over with a tank.

    111. Re:Crisis Averted! by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking, 'Crap! Now I have to watch TV again'

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    112. Re:Crisis Averted! by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      Short-order cooks (I'm not sure if that's what you meant) are payed better than anyone else in the restaurant. It's a high-skill job that requires excellent coordination, memory, and multi-tasking skills, so you'd expect it would pay well.

      Retail salespeople paid on commission probably make exactly what they deserve. I mean not everywhere, but if you're good you'll get the good job. If you meant register operators, that's not supposed to be your full time job.

      Guys who mow lawns would get paid fine if there weren't millions of illegal immigrants in this country working for nothing.

    113. Re:Crisis Averted! by lubricated · · Score: 0

      A coder coding for a company gets paid once not 6 months after the fact.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    114. Re:Crisis Averted! by brkello · · Score: 1

      Who are you to tell people how to spend their free time? Just insert your favorite pass time in there and lose that for a few months. Yeah, you can live without it, but you can still miss it and you can still care. I don't really watch anything on TV anymore, but I am not so arrogant as to say others shouldn't.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    115. Re:Crisis Averted! by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      If you can't afford it, it sounds harsh, but it's not my job to help you exercise your right to be healthy, just to not actively violate it.

      That doesn't just sound harsh, that is harsh. I'm seriously taken aback by it, and wondering if I just might be misunderstanding what you wrote. Have you actually been around sick or dying people and had your first concern as whose responsibility it is to help them? Not, "Oh shit! You're screaming, how can I help?" Even chimps usually show more empathy and compassion than that, and they're assholes as a general rule.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    116. Re:Crisis Averted! by ThinkingInBinary · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of people did care, and that was the point.

      I know there's a very strong anti-TV sentiment on Slashdot, but everyone has certain types of entertainment they enjoy, and as long as they aren't consuming it to excess, there's nothing wrong with it. For people who like TV, and who follow certain shows (for example, I follow Numb3rs), it's irritating when there aren't any new episodes to watch.

    117. Re:Crisis Averted! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I think unions are killing us in the US while trying to compete with business on a global scale.

      The system where people serving food have to rely on the charity of strangers to survive while their employer gives them a tiny token retainer is not helping the USA compete on a global scale and cutting wages in other industries is not going to help either. In a lot of industries wages are a tiny fraction of the total expediture. It's the way things are done not the amount you pay people that determines a lot of things. As an example it is cheaper to mine coal in Australia and deliver it to China than it is to buy it at the mine gate in China - and Australian miners are paid a lot.

      The US car industry is a special case - GM can make decent cars in other places with far higher wage costs while in the USA quality will soon be less than low end Indian and Chinese imports. It is bad management. The unions do not decide which car designs to build.

    118. Re:Crisis Averted! by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you're arguing against. I'm not for mandated universal coverage that's completely owned by the government

      As for your first argument,
      How can you have a right to something if you don't have the money to own it or buy it or otherwise have access to it?

      Your thinking does not compute. By that rationale, what makes anything else being sold not "rightfully" ours if we can't afford it?

      A right in this context is something to which you are entitled, to which you are ensured from your birth to be able to access. You are not entitled to access things that you can't afford.

      So you agree that health care is a right, but that we must have to be able to buy it ourselves using only the money that we have gotten from our employers? What if we're unemployed? What if we are broke? We can't afford this health care. We can't access this health care. Therefore, health caare, according to you, is not a right.

      As for the rest, I'm not for the government completely "owning" health care. I'm looking for a way to guarantee health care to everyone through a shared private/public system which reduces costs and subsidizes people who can't otherwise afford to buy into it.

      Similarly to food. I believe everyone is entitled to food, and if they can't afford food, the government should be able to help them buy it. If someone can't afford food, he shouldn't starve to death. And so we have something called food stamps. But we still have private food suppliers. Food stamps don't destroy your precious free market. But they do help address issues of inequality that an unfettered free market would exacerbate.

      A car is not a right. A car is a privilege. Driving is a privilege.

      If you leave a free market to run unfettered, without any regulation whatsoever, you get exactly what we've been moving towards in the past few decades: corporatism. I'm for a *free and fair* market - one that rewards innovation and entrepeneurship but does not CRUSH people who have been disadvantaged or disenfranchised.

      Moderators: Note that I object to this -1 Troll moderation. Think before you moderate.

    119. Re:Crisis Averted! by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      Your profiling of unionized groups is a tad bid racist. And I have a lack of confidence in your assertion that you or I could simply be "taught" skills like automobile assembly whereas we would have to be somehow uniquely talented to churn out some of the formulaic crap that (some, but not all) TV writers put out. Just like with anything else there are talented writers and there are talented automobile assembly-people. Degrading either group of people with your preconceptions about what their job entails is, in my mind, quite arrogant.

    120. Re:Crisis Averted! by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      Where do you get that doctors and lawyers have legal restrictions against competition????

      I can't speak for lawyers, but there are multiple factors affecting the number of doctors in the field, outside of market forces. The largest factor is the limit the AMA places on the number of physician licenses that are granted each year.

      For a glimpse into some problems that can arise from this:

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm
      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    121. Re:Crisis Averted! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "A right in this context is something to which you are entitled, to which you are ensured from your birth to be able to access. You are not entitled to access things that you can't afford.

      Similarly to food. I believe everyone is entitled to food, and if they can't afford food, the government should be able to help them buy it. If someone can't afford food, he shouldn't starve to death. And so we have something called food stamps. But we still have private food suppliers. Food stamps don't destroy your precious free market. But they do help address issues of inequality that an unfettered free market would exacerbate."

      I'll grant you...I think maybe I can see helping out those that are elderly, or infirmed...and cannot work. But, if you are able bodied....no I don't owe you a fucking thing, and don't need to pay anything for you, not healthcare, not food....nothing. If you can work, you need to and should....

      There is such a thing as personal responsibility and self reliance, things our country (US) was built on and helped us to succeed past many parts of the world. If you're a lazy lump...sorry, but, you're fucked, and it is your own fault.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    122. Re:Crisis Averted! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "That doesn't just sound harsh, that is harsh. I'm seriously taken aback by it, and wondering if I just might be misunderstanding what you wrote."

      No...I don't think you're misunderstanding things really. I mean, if you are able bodied and can work, then you should to support yourself, your family, and get insurance and save for emergencies. A working wage you can survive on, and save...you may need to move to a place where cost of living is cheaper....and no, you do not deserve luxury items...cable, HDTV, flashy cars..etc.

      If you are too lazy to work and too stupid to live within your means to take care of yourself with food and health....well, I'm sorry, but, yes...you're screwed. I'm not here to support you or your bad choices. It is one thing to help the elderly or infirmed....but, I'm not here to provide you with anything that you should be able to do yourself, and working and providing a life for yourself is part of it. Life is tough, and yes, some have it harder than others, but, the opportunity is there.

      If you can deal with it....well, the gene pool does need some chlorine occasionally....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    123. Re:Crisis Averted! by bob.appleyard · · Score: 1

      In the UK, if the firefighters go on strike the Army takes over. They have their own rather cute fire engines, which, as it happens, are a fetching shade of green.

      http://www.kid666.com/blog/wp-content/greengoddess.jpg

      They're called "Green Goddesses."

      --
      How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
    124. Re:Crisis Averted! by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1

      What I am saying is, that is an issue of personal moral imperative and of civil law, not human rights. Rights are supposed to keep people from doing things to me, they are not supposed to force people to do things for me.

    125. Re:Crisis Averted! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Go try selling your legal/medical/accounting services. Unless you have the right crednetials (which are not simply based on demonstrating competency/skill) it is illegal."

      That makes no sense in the argument....if you are a doctor or lawyer, you by definition have the skills and accreditation....and can then compete in the market. If you don't have those credentials, then you by definition are not a Dr. or lawyer....and therefore not in the argument....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    126. Re:Crisis Averted! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "I can't speak for lawyers, but there are multiple factors affecting the number of doctors in the field, outside of market forces. The largest factor is the limit the AMA places on the number of physician licenses that are granted each year."

      So...this doesn't keep the doctors or lawyers out there from competing with each other for patients/clients based on skills, and yes...price.

      You can shop around for them...and ask their billing rates for comparison. A few decades ago before all the HMO's and bean counters took over medicine...this was more common, but, nothing to keep you from doing this yourself.

      I pay for my medical, and I can assure you I do comparison shop...and figure which Dr. is worth what billing rate.

      You have to have credentials to be a Dr. or lawyer....you are not one if you don't have them....but, that has nothing to do with them being legally restricted from competing for business once they are Dr's or Lawyers.....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    127. Re:Crisis Averted! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "c. doctors NEVER display prices. They charge insurance companies less then cash paying customers. When was the last time you saw a list of a bunch of surgeries and their prices."

      So...neither does the garage I take my car to be repaired (posted prices), but, like the garage, Doctors and lawyers WILL tell you their charges and rates if you ask them.

      Lots of businesses don't post exactly what things cost.....you have to ask.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    128. Re:Crisis Averted! by Weirsbaski · · Score: 1

      Look at the recent postings of losses by GM. The outrageous fees they have to pay for retirements and other union perks, is killing them. They cannot sell a car at a decent price with a decent profit any longer....and they're more shoddily made, due to unions having people in there that cannot be fired without an act of God. It is almost like a govt. job.

      Seriously....while I know the unions at their start helped make things right that were wrong, they have proved to go far beyond their useful place in labor relations, and have now been strangling US businesses. I'm sorry, but, a manual laborer should not expect $30/hour, and lifetime benefits...it isn't a special job, anyone could do it without formal education, but, due to job lock-ins, there isn't competition for that job.

      Amen, brother. GM might want people to spend the most productive 30 years of their working life working for them, but once they're out the door they're not GM's problem any more. If the union was busted, and employees wages were cut down to the minimum needed to hire, good for GM. And then if people couldn't save for retirement while working for this "effective minimum wage", too f'ing bad- it's not like the free market stopped them from switching to another company with this same effective minimum wage.

      I mean, if people wanted to have a good retirement package when they left a company, then every one of those thousands of employees should've worked hard and become CEO (where they pay is big because the level of responsibility is maximum). Am I right or am I right?

      Friggin' serfs- thinking the company should give two shits about them after 30 years of service.

      --

      I am not a sig.
    129. Re:Crisis Averted! by syousef · · Score: 1

      We need music, and even TV, that reflects what it's like to live in OUR time.

      Ah that explains all the glorification of self centered idiots on TV.

      It's gotten to the point that words have taken on different meanings in the context of modern genres.

      Sci Fi: Fantasy. Loosely based on science. No thought required. Any actual thought provoking content borrowed from older fables. Uses the same tired old plots. (eg. Data as Pinocchio) (Prototype: Startrek)
      Action: Fantasy. Leave your brains behind altogether. Uses the same tired old plots. (Prototype: Rambo)
      Comedy/Chick Flick: Fantasy. Usually about a self centered character or set of characters finding happiness despite their own stupidity. Uses the same tired old plots. (Prototype Bridget Jones)
      Drama: Fantasy. Uses the same tired old plots. Unlikeable selfish characters struggle with what life throws at them

      There has to be something seriously wrong with society that all our modern stuff is boring repedative escapist braindead trash.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    130. Re:Crisis Averted! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "men, brother. GM might want people to spend the most productive 30 years of their working life working for them, but once they're out the door they're not GM's problem any more. If the union was busted, and employees wages were cut down to the minimum needed to hire, good for GM. And then if people couldn't save for retirement while working for this "effective minimum wage", too f'ing bad- it's not like the free market stopped them from switching to another company with this same effective minimum wage."

      You know....this exact set up, without unions seems to work great for most other industries and people are able to work, save for retirment, etc, and make a decent wage, all without bankrupting the company they work for....

      And....yes, if someone doesn't like the company they're working for....there are other companies out there that pay better for different work. If you screwed up in youth and didn't get an education...you *can* do it later in life. It is harder and takes much more time and dedication while working full time, but, it can be done and has been done....and then, you can seek out better paying jobs....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    131. Re:Crisis Averted! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      ...if you are a doctor or lawyer, you by definition have the skills and accreditation...and can then compete in the market. If you don't have those credentials, then you by definition are not a Dr. or lawyer...

      Right. You have to have those credentials to sell those services. Merely having those skills (or demonstrably having those skills) is insufficent. There are additional barriers to those credentials. Which is why I explained that the prices are not fixed by the free market. Not that I have an issue with it. But I do have an issue with people who see nothing wrong with a union determining the number of people legally allowed to work in an industry while they have a problem with other unions.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    132. Re:Crisis Averted! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "But I do have an issue with people who see nothing wrong with a union determining the number of people legally allowed to work in an industry while they have a problem with other unions."

      Two different arguments. In the first case, the certification on the first example(s) proves someone has the skills to peforme their job. Anyone who can go to school and pass their boards can become a Dr.

      The union example...certifies nothing...and is nothing more than a racket to strong arm a business. In the latter case...two workers might work in an area where they need certification and licensing, much like a Dr. in order to practice their craft, however, in a union shop, this excludes them....based on nothing more than not paying dues to the union....it has nothing to do with their qualifications OR certification or licensing for the job. See? This is different....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    133. Re:Crisis Averted! by westlake · · Score: 1
      Why does someone in a low skill job deserve $30+ hour, full benefits, and a pension plan?

      When the septic tank backflows into your tub, do you pump out the sludge yourself or do you hire someone to do it for you?

      If no one wants the job, what then?

    134. Re:Crisis Averted! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      that's a mighty long post to explain something that could have been simply worded in a more precise way. It's not about someone 'deserving' $30/hr, it's about what the market value of that type of worker is.

      The GP meant to say: the workers value is under $30/hr, instead he said 'deserves'.

      That's all, it's not about your birth given rights or something.

    135. Re:Crisis Averted! by 1lus10n · · Score: 1

      no, you read that correctly and so did I. It is not my job to provide you with jack shit. The argument could be made that it is not the governments job to provide you with jack shit either. It is merely our lazy ass handout driven society that trains people to think they deserve something. To put it another way: Society shouldnt try to help everyone it should merely enable everyone to help themselves. Sure some people cant, but thats a small small percent of people, and we'd be better off without them to be honest.

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    136. Re:Crisis Averted! by lubricated · · Score: 0

      Garages are far more transparent than doctors. Usually a doctor has no idea how much something will cost and won't give you a WRITTEN estimate. whereas a mechanic will give you an estimate which includes the hourly rate and blue book hours.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    137. Re:Crisis Averted! by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      You raise a good point about Health Care as a Human right. Since human rights tend to center around freedom, any "human right" that creates undue dependencies probably does not qualify as such (although it might be a good idea).

      I think if you want to explicitly state the assumptions that Health Care as a Human Right implies, it would probably be similar to:

      "All people are entitled to promote their health just as they are entitled to pursue happiness. Direct implications: Murder is banned, intentionally making someone sick is banned (of course there are nuances here but you get the gist). The government must provide reasonable health care to certain groups that because of its intervention do not have reasonable access to it (so basic health care for prisoners et al). The government may not declare special cases to prevent an individual from seeking health care (Government can't order doctors to not help you if they don't like you, but preserves things like transplant priority lists)."

      Government funded health care as a general case may be a good idea, or a bad idea, but it is definitely not a human right. Depriving some of their resources for benefit of others is a scheme to get good average case coverage, and necessarily deprives some people of certain other rights protected things like property. Conflicting rights don't make much sense when making universal declarations.

      I hope I expressed that clearly.

    138. Re:Crisis Averted! by NewAndFresh · · Score: 1

      Sure some people cant, but thats a small small percent of people, and we'd be better off without them to be honest.
      What does that mean? Are you seriously that that selfish?

      Say you're house is getting robbed and you need call the police. Well, why should I have to pay for the police when they're not helping me, they're helping you? Like you said "it's not the governments job to provide you with jack shit."
      --
      Welcome to Costco, I love you.
    139. Re:Crisis Averted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you assemble an automobile? Can you construct a high rise, or even something "easy" like a house? Can you repair mass transit vehicles, weld steel dangling a few hundred feet in the air, or ensure that a jet engine will operate safely?

      I think you can learn most of these things in days or weeks, if you have a technical background (like many high skill people), and access to the relevant tools. There aren't that many facets to mounting and measuring. For a jet engine, like any vehicle engine, the manufacturer will have made a repair manual that lists every important measurement for ensuring its safe operation.

      Making the design or repair instructions, on the other hand, is a high skilled profession.

    140. Re:Crisis Averted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I majored in English at an expensive school
      >the fiscal variaty

      I think you paid too much.

    141. Re:Crisis Averted! by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

      Yeah generally the greedy want to exploit people. I have seen this from both sides of the divide. Which is why I am left of centre now, was once right wing. Fact is the wealthy are lazy in their reasoning, they think that anyone who isn't as rich as them is guilty of ... well there is a list. But basically it is about "I'm ok, fuck you". This applies to most people and when they get power or wealth they express it. Anyone who doesn't believe in unions better be prepared for violent revolution, that is just the way it is. Read your history. I don't see why I should sugar coat it.

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
    142. Re:Crisis Averted! by rhendershot · · Score: 1

      and it's not like you can drive out to Iowa to buy groceries.


      I live in Iowa, you insensitive clod! ;)

      (and groceries are probably less expensive in NY,NY than here. $4.09 for a gallon of milk at the local stop&go)
    143. Re:Crisis Averted! by zdickinson · · Score: 1

      TV and movies are forms of entertainment, some of it bad, some of it mediocre, some of it good. Theater, symphony, radio, and writing fall into the same category. Is this a big deal because I couldn't get a new Desperate Housewives? Probably not. Is it a big deal that the Wire or other quality shows suffered? I would say yes. Is this a big deal because I couldn't get a new Rambo 10? Probably not. Is it a big deal that the next Departed isn't being made? I would say yes again. So it is a big deal and it says nothing about the state or our culture or lack there of. I'd say it is a big deal, just as it would be a big deal if your preferred entertainment were impacted.

      --
      I hate ethics, I avoid them on principle.
    144. Re:Crisis Averted! by AikonMGB · · Score: 1

      This is why GM struck a new deal with union workers which transferred most of the benefits program (including retirement) to a trust fund, with the trustee being the union itself. GM agreed to make an initial infusion into this trust fund to get it started.

      Ideally, this should reduce GM's long-term cost projections, and also reduce their liability, hopefully allowing them to borrow money at a lower interest rate and generally reducing operating costs as a whole.

      Ideally, anyway... Having said that, I agree with your general point about unions in the US (and Canada) trying to take things too far. The writer's guild strike is a good example (I feel, anyway) of unions doing things write (haha); i.e. they were in an unfair working situation and they did what they had to do to get it fixed.

      Aikon-

    145. Re:Crisis Averted! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Garages are far more transparent than doctors. Usually a doctor has no idea how much something will cost and won't give you a WRITTEN estimate. whereas a mechanic will give you an estimate which includes the hourly rate and blue book hours."

      You must have a 'gem' of a mechanic. I've often gotten there to pick my car up, and gotten the old "well, it cost a bit more than we thought it would..." story....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    146. Re:Crisis Averted! by lubricated · · Score: 0

      Yeah I've gotten that at the doctors too. Needless to say both things are not how they should work. The mechanic has way more leeway too. He basically has your car, whereas the doctor can't really hold you till you pay.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    147. Re:Crisis Averted! by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      Maybe it didn't make me smarter, but it sure improved my Team Fortress 2 ability.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    148. Re:Crisis Averted! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      . Since human rights tend to center around freedom, any "human right" that creates undue dependencies probably does not qualify as such (although it might be a good idea).

      You are making this assumption that human rights involve only negative obligations. This additional claim has no grounding in your argument. We accept positive moral obligations for a variety of other reasons (jury duty, voting, paying taxes, responding to a draft, testifying if summoned, etc.) Even Locke admits these, and he is the epitome of the "my rights merely entail non-interference" school of thought. He goes on to assert that there may be other positive obligations, e.g. to toss a life preserver to a drowning man. Other philosophers, e.g. Rawls, have asserted that human rights entail not only a lack of interference with, but also some level of promotion, by society/government/others. For instance, because you have a right to pursue happiness through rational decision making skills, the government is obligated to provide (although your parents need not take them up on it) a minimum level of education to allow you to achieve this goal.

      The other contention that you sneak into your argument is that resources are a right. While a case can certainly be made that ownership of resources is necessary to pursue human rights (such as happiness), on face property rights are given by governments, not created. Because, if property rights are innate, than the method of original acquisition would have to allow all comers equal access. Since it did not, both at the time and intertemporally, it is trivial to make the claim that our property rights system is merely an approximated convience. Which means that some readjustment can be made to the approximation without violating any human right.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    149. Re:Crisis Averted! by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      No, because it wasn't an actual paint job. They just slathered a whole lot of green paint over most of the fire engine. They used paint that supposedly washed off, although I understand that it really does a number on the underlying paint job. Once the pressure tactics ended, they were required to clean off the fire engines.

      Also, we're talking dull puke green, not bright green.

    150. Re:Crisis Averted! by stdarg · · Score: 1

      You're taking an extreme situation. How about this... have you ever had a cold? Yes? Did you feel the need to go to the emergency room for it? No? Then do you agree that society is not under an obligation to ensure that people who have colds get free access to emergency care? Hopefully. What should happen in our society if somebody goes to the emergency room and it turns out that all that's wrong with them is they have a cold? Should they then pay for the unnecessary services they consumed? Should they be forgiven for ignorance? What if they do it over and over and over and over? Do you just keep paying?

      It's all a matter of degree, of course. But unless you're talking about creating a slave race of doctors and other health care providers, it's simply not possible to satisfy every single person on Earth with every single potential claim to medical assistance. That's not even getting started on the problem of scarcity in terms of things like organs available for transplant.

      The only method we have today is based on who can pay and who can't. It's not perfect, granted. The alternative in a universal healthcare scenario is that some central body arbitrarily decides who gets care and who doesn't. Is that better? Worse? I don't know. What other option is there, random lottery?

      I do know that England's NHS is under pressure to stop treating old people and people with "unhealthy lifestyles." From the article, apparently "About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt."

    151. Re:Crisis Averted! by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Everybody becomes old eventually, right? How are we going to decide which old people should get treated (and for what conditions) and which old people should simply "let nature take its course" so to speak?

    152. Re:Crisis Averted! by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Actually, being essential and going on strike means they fine you AND throw you in jail for a year for contempt. Generally, the violations of the Essential Services Council's orders have been rare, and they're obviously not going to throw everybody in jail if enough people are illegally striking. I believe it happened when all teachers in Quebec went on strike in the 90s, and the council ruled that they couldn't (the council doesn't usually stop teachers from going on strike). They went on strike anyhow, but when every teacher in the province is on strike, they can't do terribly much.

    153. Re:Crisis Averted! by stdarg · · Score: 1

      "I can't speak for lawyers, but there are multiple factors affecting the number of doctors in the field, outside of market forces. The largest factor is the limit the AMA places on the number of physician licenses that are granted each year."


      So...this doesn't keep the doctors or lawyers out there from competing with each other for patients/clients based on skills, and yes...price.

      You're right, nothing is legally preventing them, but having a legally enforced artificial shortage has the effect of increasing the price that the market will bear. The HUGE profit of doctors (yes, after malpractice insurance and all that) is basically the market screaming, "PLEASE SEND US MORE DOCTORS! WE ARE MAKING IT VERY WORTH YOUR WHILE!" and yet there is a persistent shortage of doctors.

      And you're also not considering another factor, which is the increasingly high barrier to entry in becoming a doctor. If you graduate with $400k debt, then for all intents and purposes it's impossible for the new doctor to not charge a lot for his services. That means new doctors can't compete against established doctors. So why should established doctors lower their prices? It's what they've always charged, and they've always had enough business.


      You can shop around for them...and ask their billing rates for comparison. A few decades ago before all the HMO's and bean counters took over medicine...this was more common, but, nothing to keep you from doing this yourself.


      I pay for my medical, and I can assure you I do comparison shop...and figure which Dr. is worth what billing rate.


      You have to have credentials to be a Dr. or lawyer....you are not one if you don't have them....but, that has nothing to do with them being legally restricted from competing for business once they are Dr's or Lawyers.....

      What you're talking about is the peanuts charges. Yeah you can find a doctor who charges $20 instead of $100 for a physical. Great. You can probably find deals for all manner of things. Now try shopping around for a cheaper implantable defibrillator. My dad just got one... the cost of the device alone was over $50k.

      (Luckily insurance covered it.)

      I don't know... I would really love to find some statistics for what we're talking about. How much of healthcare spending is on fairly trivial things that cost less than $1k anyway? You would think that would account for a huge amount of it, because *most* things cost that much or less. But I suspect it's more like the income tax system where the top 5% of medical cases account for like 80% of the total cost. How do you find that out though?
    154. Re:Crisis Averted! by SpiderClan · · Score: 1

      I would argue that the reason what is produced now is prevalently crap is because it's mostly produced for money rather than the joy of creating. This goes hand in hand with the fact that so many people like "Indie" or local bands, since those bands are doing it for very little pay because they want to, so they can just make what they consider good, rather than what appeals to 13 year old girls (the highest spending demographic). There are no risks involved in creativity if you aren't going to be well paid no matter what.

    155. Re:Crisis Averted! by Hyperspite · · Score: 1
      I was thinking of refuting some of your points and then I realized that a great deal of our arguments rests in our somewhat different definition of human rights. I'm currently on about 4 hours of sleep for several consecutive days so if what I say next doesn't make any sense, please forgive me. If you get down to it, what is a human right? If we use one of the more general definitions found on Google: "Universal rights to which every person is entitled because they are justified by a moral standard that stands above the laws of any individual." I think it would be good to define our human rights according to the most basic standard, the ones everyone everywhere agrees on. However, there are few morals that are universal human characteristics. A list compiled in 1991 of many universal human traits

      In this list, a cursory scan reveals that there are many events that trigger various procedures, but the only moral prohibition I could find was incest. Perhaps if you look more closely, you might find something else (and there were things I think you could argue about, but incest was the only one clearly wrong or right). From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that anything goes except when it might screw up your genes. Different localities require or are at least amenable to variation in procedure.

      So if you want to build up a theory of morality axiomatically, it seems that the only human right is to not be forced to have sex with your mom (although I had sex with your mom all night long haha).

      So the next level of requirements would have extremely broad, but not universal acceptance - things like prohibitions on unnecessary killing. So most (and I think we can agree in all relatively functional) civil societies, we can adopt this idea.

      However, like your drowning man example, if it is an effortless or nearly effortless action to save someone from death, but you let them die, aren't you in effect killing them? I think there are two ways you could argue this: How much effort is nearly effortless? Can we put a hard number, or perhaps a mean in Joules expended? Is it unethical for a someone living in the US saving their neighbors (perhaps as a doctor) but never send money to Africa? Either you're killing all the people you could potentially save, or it is outside of your responsibility. As a practical matter, if you choose to save some people, you are excluding others (you only have so much time/money).

      The point is, in the real world, it is impossible to completely satisfy this sort of ethics unless you run yourself into an early grave. After all, how can you sleep at night? Literally. People die while you are sleeping. Obviously, as a practical matter, one must kill a large number of people in order to live a happy life. Things are getting crazy!

      So including POSITIVE obligations as part of our definition of secondary human rights is crazy as a practical matter. It is much better to define things we shouldn't do that don't conflict with the basic satisfaction of our metabolic processes, because, while they may add a finite number of steps to avoid each action, they are manageable. Positive obligations to all people add many simultaneous steps each second and build up at an unmanageable rate. Not taking action to kill people is pretty easy to do in my book.

      So we have our not killing people thing in place on the basis that most people don't like it. However, the no screwing mom prohibition was explained as proliferating your genes without nearly guaranteed defects. So why is killing people bad? A good example of the point I am about to make is: "My name is Inigo Montoya. You kill my father. Prepare to die." What you reap is what you sow. Most people don't want retaliation vis a vis death used against them no matter what sort of wrong they might commit. The best way to insure that is that people agree, hey, let's NOT kill each other because it causes a cycle of violence.

      So this no unnece

    156. Re:Crisis Averted! by Dragoness+Eclectic · · Score: 1

      That's because he's doing "work for hire" and doesn't retain the rights to it. A writer doing "work for hire", e.g. an ad copywriter or a journalist, gets paid once and not 6 months after the fact.

      Code for yourself and market it, you own it.

      --
      ---dragoness
    157. Re:Crisis Averted! by jdp · · Score: 1

      Well said.

    158. Re:Crisis Averted! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of refuting some of your points and then I realized that a great deal of our arguments rests in our somewhat different definition of human rights. I'm currently on about 4 hours of sleep for several consecutive days so if what I say next doesn't make any sense, please forgive me.

      I agree that a great deal of our arguments do rest on a different interpetation of rights. What you wrote made sense, although I do disagree on some points. I hope my quote & respond style is not overly annoying. And I have recently read some rather nasty rants, so I apologize in advance if that voice sneaks into my reply.

      "Universal rights to which every person is entitled because they are justified by a moral standard that stands above the laws of any individual."

      Seems like a reasonable definition. However, you then get to "A list compiled in 1991 of many universal human traits", leading eventually to "So if you want to build up a theory of morality axiomatically, it seems that the only human right is to not be forced to have sex with your mom." Basically, this is moral relativism + the intersection of all moral systems. A universal moral standard need not rely on what every society has developed.

      Utilitarianism posits a universal set of standards (doing the greatest good for the greatest number.) So does the Categorical Imperitive (something is moral only if everyone doing it does not eliminate the opportunity you are taking advantage of. It is immoral to take all the pennies every time from the "take-a-penny" tray because the system breaks down if everyone does it.) Obviously, the Categorical Imperitive is more complex, but that is the basic idea as a concept if you ignore all the nitpicky problems with my formulation. Rawls suggests an offshoot of utiltarianism where a society's rules are set up to make the worst off as well off as possible.

      The reason that I get into all this, is because I believe that morality can be argued in the abstract from any of these positions. Any variances in moral systems set up in real life can be explained by errors, or biases, or an intentional advantage to the formulators.

      So the next level of requirements would have extremely broad, but not universal acceptance - things like prohibitions on unnecessary killing. So most (and I think we can agree in all relatively functional) civil societies, we can adopt this idea.

      I would contend that murder is immoral because if everyone were to murder, society would break down. But we agree on this result so I shall continue.

      However, like your drowning man example, if it is an effortless or nearly effortless action to save someone from death, but you let them die, aren't you in effect killing them?

      I say yes. You then raise two objections. One is how much effort is required to actually save the person. The other is the range of the obligation. I would contend the latter is essentially asking how much effort is required to find out about the situation.

      You then conclude "After all, how can you sleep at night? Literally. People die while you are sleeping." I disagree on this point. I believe that there is a moral obligation to save people in Africa. You also have a moral obligation to take care of yourself. There is also a problem in that you are treating morality as binary (you either are or are not moral). I believe that morality is an ideal that nobody can live up to (okay, 1/6 of the people on earth think 1 guy did 2000 years ago) completly, and instead the morality of a person is a float that describes how good someone is. Mother Teresa devoted her life to helping poor people. I certainly don't. She's more moral than I am. I wish I knew more about fyzzy logic.

      Positive obligations to all people add many simultaneous steps each second and build up at an unmanageable rate. Not taking action to kill peop

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  3. Writers are back? by Hordeking · · Score: 1

    So that means...we'll be getting more of the same crap as before the strike? Crap in, crap out.

    --
    Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    1. Re:Writers are back? by neumayr · · Score: 1

      Uh, what you would be getting if the writers were still on strike is a lot worse: Stuff that doesn't need writers. Reality TV.
      There's nothing wrong with watching TV, as long as it's selective. As long as you don't spend everyday sitting through whatever the networks feel like airing...

      I for one am looking forward to Volume 3 of Heroes.

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    2. Re:Writers are back? by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      Stuff that doesn't need writers. Reality TV. Of course it needs writers. It just doesn't need good ones that can come up with a plausible story.
  4. YAY! by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now I'll get to see the new episodes of Star Trek!

    What? What do you mean "cancelled?"

    OK Battlestar Galactica. No? How about Babylon...

    Oh hell. Somebody please point to a nerd show I can watch tonight?

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    1. Re:YAY! by Xentor · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tonight? Can't help ya there...

      Just wait for Heroes to come back. Only major show I still watch.

      --
      "The amount of intelligence on this planet is a constant. The population is growing." -Cole's Axiom
    2. Re:YAY! by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      The Big Bang Theory (CBS), not sure what day and when because my DVR records it for me.

      While it is sitcom level tripe, the geek facts in this show are pretty accurate.....my non-geek wife enjoys it and so do I.

      You can catch all of the prior episodes on CBS.com, too.

      Layne

    3. Re:YAY! by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's on tomorrow night and is called Lost. And while it may look like a Survivor-themed soap opera on the surface, make no mistake: it's a sci-fi show. While I'm on the topic, the creators have mostly committed to making five more episodes this season (of an original eight that were held back by the strike). Expect about month's hiatus in between the eighth finished episode and the five new ones.

    4. Re:YAY! by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      The Big Bang Theory (CBS), not sure what day and when because my DVR records it for me.


      It was on Monday night at 8:30, right after 'How I Met Your Mother' but a recent rerun was on a Wednesday night at 8:30.

      That said, new episodes will be coming out March 17 according to this article.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    5. Re:YAY! by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, seeing as its Wednesday, there's a fresh ep of Mythbusters on tonight. Does that help?

      Oh, and you all should be watching Lost. It's one of the closest things we've got to Sci-Fi on a mainstream channel right now.

      Bonus: The end of the series has been plotted out and sealed with the studio, so no inconclusive endings a la X-Files, no cancellations before the show ends a la Serenity. Just an interesting story, from beginning to end. When was the last time you had a guarantee like that from a network show?

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    6. Re:YAY! by everphilski · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily hardcore "Nerd" shows but the only three shows I really watch are "24", "the office" and "30 rock". I like the believeable action and format of "24" (although some suspense of disbelief is needed), and the comedy styles of the latter two, particularly 30 Rock. Different types of "geeks", more office and production humor, but still good stuff IMO.

      If I'm feeling geeky, I pull out the computer, pull out some hardware, my Fischertechnik set, etc. I use my 2-5 hours a week of TV (more during football season) as my relaxation time away from the normal hobbies.

    7. Re:YAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Heroes - The dumbed down show full of pretty people that tries to appeal to every market.

      Coming in season 3...

      The pensioner heroes like Reginald has the power to kill just by talking. He starts about the war then mentions how things aren't how they used to be back in the day.
      Eastern European minority hero Svetlana who has the ability to setup a soft-porn website in just 22 seconds and can scam your credit card details by knowing your name.
      CGI heroes like Jar-Jar Binks who has the ability to make all viewers watching a show turn channels instantly.

    8. Re:YAY! by gallwapa · · Score: 1

      You mean Firefly, correct?

    9. Re:YAY! by mattmcm · · Score: 1

      Reginald has the power to kill just by talking He isn't reciting poetry, is he?
    10. Re:YAY! by click2005 · · Score: 4, Informative

      OK Battlestar Galactica. No? How about Babylon...

      I know you're trying to be funny but BSG returns April 4 with first half of 20-episode final season. Production on second half could start as early as March. Airdate for those TBD.

      B5 The Lost Tales (DVD #2) - no idea.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    11. Re:YAY! by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Oops, yes, I meant Firefly.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    12. Re:YAY! by HairyNevus · · Score: 1
      Most nerds should be watching webisodes*, like on http://www.superdeluxe.com/ . Tim and Eric NOT a nerd show? I do contest that!


      *I do not contest that I should be killed for using that word. It slipped and my backspace is brkocen.

      --
      You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    13. Re:YAY! by thanatos_x · · Score: 1

      Tonight? It's been a long while since there's been one show on a night that I consider watching, let alone in the nerd genre.

      Impressively enough the networks have gotten about 3 shows that I'll watch regularly (24, Heroes, Terminator), and I know of a few others I'm missing (BSG, The Office, some other cable shows) I'd probably watch more, but without a DVR I generally forget to watch most of them. At some point I'll probably pony up the money for a few DVD box sets, preferably in a year or two when HD is the rage and I can get them cheaply... I won't have a big enough TV and most of them I won't watch more than 2-3 times.

      --
      I am not an expert. If I am misled in something, please correct me.
    14. Re:YAY! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      ...Mythbusters...
      Or Mythbusters 2 even. Better known as Smash Labs. It appears that a lot of people hate it because it copies the idea of Mythbusters, but it has been okay so far. I certainly would want to see some credentials on their people. Just what sort of credential is "idea guy"? Can I put that on my resume? But then, the credentials of the Mythbusters aren't so hot either. They are hollywood special effects artists. What makes us think they have any clue on science?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    15. Re:YAY! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      And while it may look like a Survivor-themed soap opera on the surface

      Few TV shows have anything BUT surface; no depth at all.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    16. Re:YAY! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Roses are red
      Violets are blue
      I am a Vogon
      Aurthur's not very funny on Thursdays.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    17. Re:YAY! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Actually the one show I try to watch regularly is "My Name Is Earl." Its characters bear an uncanny resemblance to a lot of people I know here in Springfield*, only Earl is a lot funnier than Springfield.

      -mcgrew

      *linked journal has whores, somebody else's wife, an alien, a needle junkie, and a woman who just got out of prison last Friday.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    18. Re:YAY! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I could tolerate the first 5-6 instances of terrible writing on Heroes, but then it just started to get on my damned nerves. Screw the brain-eating and telekinesis, Sylar's only real superpower is that nobody ever kills him when they have the chance. I especially enjoyed how half of Hiro's story was filler for half the first season... they might as well have just flashed "FILLER" on the screen instead of giving us pointless subplots that went nowhere. Also make sure you never explain how Mohinder got back to New York, because that wasn't confusing or anything.

      Anyway, I don't think a writer's strike could hurt Heroes... I'm kind of surprised to learn it was written at all.

    19. Re:YAY! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      It's been a long while since there's been one show on a night that I consider watching, let alone in the nerd genre.

      Actually that was my point. I still haven't seen Terminator, they said is was on Sunday nights and I missed the premiere, then it just wasn't on. Now I see it's on Mondays, they'll probably change it again.

      Nobody can find the damned thing because they keep moving it, then they cancel it because nobody's watching and say "see? nobody likes this stuff!"

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    20. Re:YAY! by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It appears that a lot of people hate it because it copies the idea of Mythbusters

      I don't. I hate it because it ditches the interesting parts of Mythbusters (quirky, real people; lots of tinkering and failure, a ridiculously wide variety of subjects and techniques) and keeps the boring parts (unnecessary time dilation to pad out the 44 minute format; forced expositional banter).

      What really bugs me about the show is that they appear to be actually looking for alternative solutions to big problems with the aim of saving more lives/making it cheaper and easier to save more lives, but you never get a sense of that beyond the voiceover intro. Whether they succeed or not, no mention is made of the current methods they're trying to supplant or whether any of the potential insight they've gained will be used/passed on to relevant people who might then use it to save lives.

      Also, the presentation of the show is still very rough around the edges. In Mythbusters, they'll happily divulge details step-by-step. In Smash Lab, there's a lot of "and thens" that can be quite jarring.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    21. Re:YAY! by Arterion · · Score: 1

      Stargate Atlantis has been coming out every week, or there abouts.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    22. Re:YAY! by sjaguar · · Score: 1

      Doctor Who?

      Torchwood?

      American Idol?

      What?!? I've got to stop letting my wife add stuff to the TiVo. :)

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0.
    23. Re:YAY! by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      The Big Bang Theory (CBS), not sure what day and when because my DVR records it for me. I recorded the first few episodes because it was hyped as a nerdy show but the writing and acting were so horrible that I couldn't bring myself to watch it anymore. I think I watched the first 3 episodes trying to give it a chance but it never even got close to good enough to watch. I must admit I am surprised that there are people still watching it.
      --

      Enigma

    24. Re:YAY! by netsavior · · Score: 1

      I guess we are just limited to:
      Heroes
      Journeyman
      Terminator:Sara Conner Chronicles
      Big Bang Theory
      Lost
      Family Guy
      Moonlight
      Numb3rs
      Jericho
      Chuck
      Knight Rider

      Just because there are currently no space operas, doesn't mean there aren't geek shows... oh yeah and if you just wait a couple of months the new star wars CG show will come on cartoon network.

    25. Re:YAY! by Bellum+Aeternus · · Score: 1

      Lol, and NBC left iTunes. No Heroes for me... I don't even own a TV anymore.

      --
      - I voted for Nintendo and against Bush
    26. Re:YAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does porn count?

    27. Re:YAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're willing to watch slightly downgraded versions, they're online on fox.com, similar to how Heroes was on NBC. It does require you to download some player, but IIRC it works fairly well.

      As for the days switching, they did a Sunday-Monday release, and had two episodes back to back. I missed them too. They also had a repeat one of the mondays, I'm guessing due to the strike. (They've aired 5 of 9 episodes already filmed, so there will be a bit of a delay at some point unless the writers can rush scripts out)

      Still, I've enjoyed it thus far and it usually has me anxious to see the next episode; if I had a DVD box set of them I'm sure I'd finish it in 2-3 days.

    28. Re:YAY! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      All but the third are only on cable. It doesn't make a lot of sense for me to pay for cable when I watch so little TV.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    29. Re:YAY! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Nobody can find the damned thing because they keep moving it

      Have you tried iTunes? At a $1.99 an episode, it's worth not having to put up with TV schedules. As a bonus, light TV watching actually translates to a far smaller bill than cable television.
    30. Re:YAY! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Have you been talking to Amy and Tami about my screen saver?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    31. Re:YAY! by MagusZeal · · Score: 1

      Nevermind how they fail to perform even basic checks for some of the earlier 'tests' they do. A prime example is during the tornado proofing ep where the first test home wasn't bolted to the ground, while the second test was along with reinforcements before pitching crap at it. Granted carbon fibering a trailer was rather neat to watch.

    32. Re:YAY! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Oh hell. Somebody please point to a nerd show I can watch tonight?

      Stargate Atlantis. You'll love Dr. McKay.

    33. Re:YAY! by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      Just wait for Heroes to come back. Only major show I still watch.

      FYI, Heroes isn't coming back until next season. I found the second season to be thoroughly mediocre, mostly following the exact same formula from season one but without any of the originality. You know, Peter is all powerful yet whines like a little girl the entire season just before Nathan finally decides to do the right thing and supposedly dies in the process.

      Personally, I'm waiting for Eureka to come back on. I have loved that show since I tuned in during the middle of "Dr. Nobel". Chuck has also turned out to be one of my new favorites.

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    34. Re:YAY! by click2005 · · Score: 1

      Terminator:Sara Conner Chronicles

      aka Sarah Connicles

      Just because there are currently no space operas, doesn't mean there aren't geek shows...

      BattleStar Galactica returns 4th April. There were rumours that someone was going to make a Wing Commander series when BSG was done.

      Out of all those shows, I can't say any of them are really geek shows. They might have geeky bits in them but most of it is techno-babble and pseudo-science that is dumbed down to appeal to a wider audience. I'm not saying they're not good.. I watch 5 of them regularly.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    35. Re:YAY! by SPQR_Julian · · Score: 1

      I actually have mod points, but instead I'm replying to you.

      Terminator premiered on Sunday night after whatever big football playoff game was on that evening, then aired a second episode in its normal timeslot the next night. (That would be Monday.) It's been on Monday ever since. Not that FOX hasn't done more than their share of dumb things, but this show has been promoted like crazy since the summer, and they've not "moved" it around at all. Plus all of the episodes are available through FOX's website.

      I know it's the American way and all, but don't blame them for your stupidity.

    36. Re:YAY! by everphilski · · Score: 1

      I try to catch "Earl", I'm a jason lee fan (Mallrats, chasing Amy, Dogma, etc. the whole Kevin Smith Askew-niverse) but it's about the time the kids go to bed. His brother makes the show though.

      "Hey Earl?"

      "yeah, Randy?"

      "If the muppets and sesame street got in a fight ..."

    37. Re:YAY! by SchmellsAngel · · Score: 1

      Breaking Bad, on AMC. If you have a strong stomach. High School chemistry teacher melts down at his car wash after-school job, and finds a second career in the pharmaceutical industry. Lots more hydrofluoric acid than I ever wanted to see on the small screen.

      --
      We must repeat.
    38. Re:YAY! by SoupGuru · · Score: 1

      Smash Lab seems very contrived. The dialog is forced and unnatural. No one seems to have a personality. And then there's the token hot chick... what does she bring to show besides a sexy ass? I confess I've only seen 15 minutes or so of one episode. It couldn't keep me engaged so I turned the channel and never looked back.

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    39. Re:YAY! by RpiMatty · · Score: 1

      I've been letting my Tivo tape it, because I think I've finally seen every mythbusters episode ever. Smash Labs seems decent, but they do like to skip over some parts (where in Mythbusters they give you the Science content warning) to get to the big booms.

      What bothered me about the pilot episode, (where they were trying to stop an out of control car from crossing a divided highway) was how they totally overlooked R&D that NASCAR has already done.
      In the episode 1 of the teams was trying to take a standard concrete barrier and add on 3 ft of lightweight concrete that would crumble and absorb an impact from the car. NASCAR already has this using a high density foam in front of the concrete wall around the tracks. The nascar setup handles cars moving at 200 mph, so why couldn't it be used on a public road.
      Oh well, I did like the Earthquake proof house episode from last week. One team was able to design a house that withstood a simulated earthquake that they claimed would have been a 10.0 mag. quake.

      Anyone know if Journeyman will be back?

    40. Re:YAY! by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Journeyman is fairly conclusively cancelled. Sadly, we now have Eli Stone (on after Lost), which poaches shitloads of material, but instead of the science angle, it's the God angle. Yawn.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    41. Re:YAY! by Zombie91836 · · Score: 1

      The thing I hate about Smash Lab is the unnecessary editing that takes place to pad the time. In the earthquake episode, they edited it as if they were swapping the test houses in and out for each test, instead of doing one house per day. You could tell that they were done on different days, because the people were wearing different clothing. Yet, between each test, they would show the clip of them hoisting the houses back into place again. The same clip from a different angle. Then, they would say "well, test house 1 did well, let's get test house 2 back into place and test it." Please. Don't insult us like that.

    42. Re:YAY! by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      What bugs me is that they're pretty obviously just presenters. The people who do the real work are in the background or never even seen. MythBusters was intriguing because you see the effort they put into their designs, though even they're getting away from that now. Every time you see the Smash Lab presenters do any work, it's clearly just for the camera. Everything is set up just right for them to come in and attach that "last" piece, turn to the camera and exclaim how hard it was.

      The worst example was probably in the hurricane-proof house episode. Two of the hosts set out to "build" an air cannon. Step one, they gather the parts to construct the air cannon, one of which was a fully constructed but obviously custom fabricated rig to hold the air tanks. After a few minutes of putting it (back) together, the cannon is completely operational and works perfectly on the first try.

      I also love how they *tell* us that so-and-so is the "design" guy, the "ideas" guy, and the engineer. Yet they never show anyone doing any design, coming up with an idea more complicated than the title of the episode, or actually engineering anything. The woman is supposed to be a scientist, yet she's amazed by the miraculous properties of carbon fiber. (I get that they're trying to explain it to the audience, but they could do that without pretending to be morons.)

    43. Re:YAY! by EndingPop · · Score: 1

      I hate that they claim it's science. On Mythbusters, they have the benefit of ignorance. Neither of them is scientifically trained, so they have some reason for when their experiments are bereft of real conclusions. These guys are supposedly "scientists" and they are much less rigorous than the Mythbusters. On the concrete episode, they managed to declare "success" only because they drastically changed the goal midstream. Can't they end an episode with failure? That occurs in real life, sometimes.

      --
      My Company - Red Cedar Technology
    44. Re:YAY! by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

      I hate Smash Lab because they seem to have no idea what they are doing. From an idea perspective, they might be okay but from an implementation approach, they are awful at both actually doing it and selecting feasible ideas.

      One of my roommates ripped apart the hurricane-proof house episode - studs not build properly or mount the house to the pad. The other two and I watched the soft concrete episode. They don't seem to have anyone telling them things that are common sense such as pouring concrete on uneven surface yields uneven densities. Even if their idea worked (and there's a pretty clear reason it would never work), implementing that ridiculous concrete strip in the infrastructure would cost far too much to make it worth a damn.

      We pretty much considered creating a kid-code on our DVR so no one could watch this show. The Mythbusters are at least honest that they may not know what they are doing. Their experience in special effects provides them with a reasonable implementation know-how. When fans call them out, they step it up and reinvestigate. Some of the myths aren't very good but they have 114 episodes produced. Smash lab has 7 and popular opinion is that it sucks - I read that Discovery's forums have 5 pages of requests to kill it.

    45. Re:YAY! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      One team was able to design a house that withstood a simulated earthquake that they claimed would have been a 10.0 mag. quake.
      Yes, and they did it by using a technique that is already used on large buildings. Basically, converting the side to side motion to an up and down, which since the whole building is already designed to be static vertically, it is pretty well able to withstand forces in a vertical direction. The other team tried to use shocks and springs to hold it in place while the ground moved below it, but the affect, which anyone could have guessed off the bat, would be that the springs only resist force, not stop it, so the bottom of the building IS going to move and the top of the building IS going to try to obey the laws of momentum and NOT move, which is a recipe for disaster. Now if they'd tried to tune the springs and shocks to the moment of inertia of the house, perhaps they would have had success, or perhaps an unstoppable feedback mechanism.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    46. Re:YAY! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Supposedly she is a "scientist", but of what sort? Could be she was the one of the group that passed high school physics.
      I personally find her to be more intelligent than Kari on Mythbusters, and also I find her more attractive, but redheads were never my thing.
      Also, the 3 foot thick concrete barrier on Smashlabs seems to be more intelligent than Tory on Mythbusters. What is he supposed to be, eye candy for the ladies? Do ladies really like that nasty growth on the chin combined with a dumb as a box of hammers personality?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    47. Re:YAY! by Laxori666 · · Score: 1

      Yeah... all of the Heroes in that show are completely retarded. Ooh look I've stopped time and have a sword and Syler is there.

      Audience: KILL SYLER KILL SYLER

      Hiro: Wait!! Must save my friend and teleport away!!!!

      Audience: ...

      Hiro: I.. kuld not du it

      Audience: ...

    48. Re:YAY! by sandmaninator · · Score: 1

      Check out NBC.com. Full episodes of Heroes are there.
      What you don't need anymore is TV Service. A TV can still be a nice big monitor.

    49. Re:YAY! by dwye · · Score: 1

      Bonus: The end of the series has been plotted out and sealed with the studio, so no inconclusive endings a la X-Files, no cancellations before the show ends a la Serenity.

      If everyone publicly boycotted it, from now on, it probably would be cancelled. All that sealing the ending with the studio (not Price Waterhouse? Or even just their lawyer?) guarantees is that, like escrowed code, you can eventually find out how the writers wanted it to come out in rough draft phase.

      Maybe they DO want an inconclusive ending a la X-Files, too. Writers can be stupid, even when they are smart. George Bernard Shaw wrote (in the aftermath, from the original play program for Pygmalion) that Eliza Doolittle married Freddy, after all.

    50. Re:YAY! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1
      (Spoiler warning if you haven't seen season 1 yet)

      That's not nearly as bad as:

      Hi, I'm Mohinder! Sylar is on the floor unconscious in front of me, because I whacked him with what appeared to be a large bulletin board. He's completely defenseless, and I have a loaded gun in arm's reach. Also, he just killed one of my friends. Also, he just tortured me. Also, only a little bit ago I was perfectly willing and able to kill him but he managed to escape the bullet.

      But instead of killing him, I'm going to ignore him completely and take my friend, who is now dead, to his parents house.

      (Don't ask how I even know where his parents live! Or how I got this taxicab, for that matter! And definitely ignore the fact that I could have easily killed Sylar, who tortured me and just killed my friend, before taking him to his parents house.)


      That was awful, awful screen writing.
    51. Re:YAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not to mention the fact that the end of the first season made no sense whatsoever. Peter was going to explode, and Claire could have shot him, but didn't want to, despite the fact that he wouldn't have been killed. Then his brother flew him off, seemingly committing suicide to save everybody, despite the fact that Peter could fly himself.

      The Heroes writers are apparently oblivious to one of the most fundamental rules of fiction: the audience can suspend their disbelief to believe in supernatural powers, but only if the story is internally consistent. When the writers forget what their own characters can do, the suspension of disbelief smacks the audience in the face and the story becomes a farce.

    52. Re:YAY! by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Stargate Atlantis has been running through the strike (I'm guessing it's because their writers are Canadian and don't belong to the WGA).
      Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles started during the strike (I have no idea how).
      You mentioned Battlestar Galactica; it's been off the air because of the strike, and now that the strike is over, it's coming back. Season 4 begins April 4th.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    53. Re:YAY! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The Heroes writers are apparently oblivious to one of the most fundamental rules of fiction: the audience can suspend their disbelief to believe in supernatural powers, but only if the story is internally consistent. When the writers forget what their own characters can do, the suspension of disbelief smacks the audience in the face and the story becomes a farce.

      And what nerds forget is that the characters in the story are supposed to be real humans in real situations with real emotions. Just because you can Comic Book Guy it out in a detached fashion and think of exactly how you'd use your super powers in that situation, doesn't mean the story suddenly becomes internally inconsistent if the character doesn't have the same idea.

      Peter was freaking out over losing control over his nuclear powers. Why do you assume he could make use of or control any of his other powers at that moment either when he was already trying as hard as he could to not blow up?

      That said, Hiro or Mojinder should have killed Sylar when they had the chance, and when Hiro finally *did* get around to stabbing Sylar, he should have stabbed him many, many times.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    54. Re:YAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you can Comic Book Guy it out in a detached fashion and think of exactly how you'd use your super powers in that situation, doesn't mean the story suddenly becomes internally inconsistent if the character doesn't have the same idea.

      Except she did have the same idea. She just didn't follow through. She was shot in the head herself and came back from the dead. She already watched him come back from the dead. They already agreed on the plan. She was pointing the gun at him. They knew no harm would come to him. All she had to do was pull the trigger. Instead, she let the brother commit suicide for no reason (or not, I heard he wasn't dead after all, I dread to think what lame excuse they came up with for that).

      Every single part of the story leading up to that point leads viewers to believe that shooting him in the head was not only necessary, but the obvious choice, with no downsides. And then the characters treat it as a death sentence for no discernible reason, only for it to become obvious at the end that the ending consistent with the history and circumstances was shoved aside for nonsense that had a feel-good bad-guy-turns-good-and-flies-off-to-be-a-hero ending. That's the in-your-face inconsistency I'm talking about.

      This isn't about 20/20 hindsight, this is about a bunch of characters doing something totally inexplicable and unnecessary for no other reason than the brothers flying off together would be dramatic and tie up a story arc (which was pretty iffy anyway, they were going for an iconic phrase and the justification turned out to be a paper-thin flop). Even if you can come up with a good explanation, you'd be the one Comic Book Guying it, because it wasn't at all apparent in what made it onto the screen.

    55. Re:YAY! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      And what nerds forget is that the characters in the story are supposed to be real humans in real situations with real emotions. Actually, you are entirely incorrect. Characters in stories like Heroes are fictional, and aren't supposed to be real humans in real situations with real emotions. This isn't even just a matter of them having super powers, either. In fiction writing, it is far more important to be internally consistent than it is to be a slave to realism. There is a famous assertion by Chekhov (the writer, not the Star Trek character) that states that if a pistol is introduced at the beginning of a story, it must be fired by the end of the story. The wider corollary to that is that the internal aspects of a good story should fit neatly together, without loose ends or gaps. No one should be able to look back at the story arc and say "but wait, why didn't X just do Y?" A well-written story should, in hindsight, have a strong degree of inevitability to it. Every part of the story leading up to the ending should do the work of sending the plot to its inevitable and unavoidable conclusion. Heroes is not written in this way. Heroes is slapped together by hacks with only the faintest of notions of where they're going and how they're going to get there. They repeatedly use the superpowers as a deus ex machina when it suits their needs (getting out of the corner they've painted themselves into), and ignore them completely when their utilization would spoil the aim of their plotting. This is bad writing. Bad writing is bad writing regardless of its "realism". Real life makes for bad story. Real life is all loose ends and inconclusive arcs and unsatisfying conclusions. People watch stories to get away from that shit, not to see more of it.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    56. Re:YAY! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      When did Claire get shot in the head? The cop shot her in the chest, that's the only shooting I remember. Peter got stabbed in the head and was 'dead' until they pulled the glass out, does that imply he'd survive getting his brains blown out and if he did would it stop the bomb? I never got the impression that they were sure no harm would come to Peter, that he was literally immortal, instead I got the impression Claire thought he would die, and that was the point of shooting him, and she didn't want to do it. At every point she seemed frightened of the prospect of shooting Peter. She only seemed sure that she would survive being near him.

      (or not, I heard he wasn't dead after all, I dread to think what lame excuse they came up with for that)

      Yeah, well, my defense of the ending of season 1 aside, in season 2 they really dorked around with the healing power, among other things.

      Season 1 had it's fair share of tolerable plot holes, but Season 2 was a doozy, mostly imo because the writers were rushed to finish the season ASAP before the strike.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    57. Re:YAY! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      It's on tomorrow night and is called Lost. And while it may look like a Survivor-themed soap opera on the surface, make no mistake: it's a sci-fi show. But it's not any good. It's a game of "enigma of the week set to the tune of group politics". It obviously has no underlying "secret" that remains to be discovered. Oh, it may eventually get one, but I think it's obvious that the writers have only the vaguest notion of what's behind all the nonsense in a world they created! It's as compelling as a bunch of kids telling ghost stories while shining a flashlight under their face. It's a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, inside a puzzle, coated with dogshit, and placed in a burning bag on my doorstep, and JJ Abrams is ringing the doorbell.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    58. Re:YAY! by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      yet she's amazed by the miraculous properties of carbon fiber.

      *slaps forehead*

      Thank you for bringing that up, I'd totally forgotten it. Yeah, her reactions, for someone who theoretically holds at least a BSc, is way off.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    59. Re:YAY! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Characters in stories like Heroes are fictional, and aren't supposed to be real humans in real situations with real emotions.

      If they aren't human, if they show no semblance of human emotion, then they aren't interesting. A character who is specifically emotionless, like say Spock, is only interesting due to their contrast with the humans or how they themselves end up showing emotion. That's why they're called "characters".

      In fiction writing, it is far more important to be internally consistent than it is to be a slave to realism.

      Okay, well it was internally consistent for Peter to freak out and not know what to do when he loses control of his nuclear powers, because that's the way the character had been presented the whole time. He had some training in controlling his powers, yes, but the only time he was shown to be fully in control as you would have him be is as Dark Future Peter.

      It would have made no sense whatsoever for Peter to suddenly go "Oh noes I'm blowing up just like my dream, but wait no big deal I can fly, and OH RIGHT I can stop time and teleport! So I'll just stop time, teleport over North Korea, blow up inside their underground nuclear testing facility and not only save New York but stop a future war with NK, and hey before I do that while time is stopped I'll go check on Sylar and make sure he's dead, maybe take him with me when I blow up to make double sure he's not in season 2".

      Peter doing what you think he should have done would have been incredibly inconsistent with his character. But for some geeks, only the internal consistency of the physics seems to matter.

      No one should be able to look back at the story arc and say "but wait, why didn't X just do Y?"

      No, wrong, every story SHOULD have a moment when you say "but wait, why didn't X just do Y? Oh... right... because of the character's feelings!" Characters should make mistakes, they should miss opportunities, they should let someone live when reason and logic says they should kill them, because otherwise they're completely boring robots. Show me a story where you can never find a way that the character couldn't have done something better or smarter, and I'll show you a sad boring uninteresting story probably written by Ayn Rand.

      I shudder to think of what disasters Shakespeare's plays would have been had he followed this philosophy. Flawed characters who made what were in hindsight obvious mistakes were the essence of his plays' poignancy.

      Heroes is hardly Hamlet, but if you stop thinking in terms of what the characters could have done, I think you'll see that there was very much a sense of inevitability, driven in part by the human failings of the characters themselves.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    60. Re:YAY! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Look, all I know is that I spent half the episodes yelling at the screen: "You stupid idiot!" or wondering why the editors decided not to show that crucial plot point (how *did* Mohinder get back to New York, for example?) or being obviously aware that half the episode was nothing but filler! ... that is bad writing. The saddest part is that this bad 24 or whatever episode season probably could have been a cleanly-written 13 episode season, but oh well. Hell, even the scene where Sylar goes to see his mom. WTF was that about, other than filler?

      Also it didn't help that virtually none of the characters are likeable in any way. Mohinder was the only normal guy in the entire show who wasn't a whiner, or using his powers to be an asshole, or murdering people, etc. And then I got pissed at him when he refused to do the OBVIOUS ACTION anybody would have done in his place and shoot Sylar... after that, I have to say the most likeable character was probably Sylar himself, because at least he kills some of the other unlikeable characters.

      Oh, and the BS voiceovers at the beginning of each episode about some mental retard's idea of evolution was a nice touch of annoying they just had to add. Sorry, I'm a horrible bitter person, but I hate it when a half-dozen people insist I watch this great new show, and the show is crap.

    61. Re:YAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its Wednesday, and everybody knows that "there is nothing good on TV" on Wednesdays. That's because that is the night when conditions are perfect for Business Time.

    62. Re:YAY! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      how *did* Mohinder get back to New York, for example?

      I dunno, he took a cab or rented a car? You're complaining about filler, but then whine about them not showing the most mundane thing possible?

      Hell, even the scene where Sylar goes to see his mom. WTF was that about, other than filler?

      I know, and what's up with that scene in Macbeth where he hallucinates a dagger?! It has nothing to do with anything! Other than Macbeth's state of mind, of course.

      Filler, character development, whatever. Personally I thought him going to her basically asking forgiveness by asking if he could be normal and insignificant, only to have her insist that he can and must be somebody, was a good way of adding some depth to the character.

      I guess if they had taken out all of that kind of stuff, they could have made a very punchy 13 episode show, but I think it would have felt hollow and shallow.

      Sorry, I'm a horrible bitter person, but I hate it when a half-dozen people insist I watch this great new show, and the show is crap.

      Well you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm really wondering what shows meet your standards. I'm also wondering why you slogged through the whole thing if you hated it so much...

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    63. Re:YAY! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I dunno, he took a cab or rented a car?

      He took a cab from India to NYC? Wow, that's a fare.

      I'm also wondering why you slogged through the whole thing if you hated it so much...

      Because I paid for the DVDs, like a sucker, because a lot of my friends said it was a great show.

    64. Re:YAY! by qzulla · · Score: 1
      Anyone know if Journeyman will be back?

      Or Junkyard Wars?

      qz

    65. Re:YAY! by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      The end of the series has been plotted out and sealed with the studio...

      Oh man! Talk about a juicy target for the... TERRORISTS(cue scary music)

      --
      What?
    66. Re:YAY! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      He took a cab from India to NYC? Wow, that's a fare.

      I guess I don't know exactly what specific event in the series you're talking about. But gee let me think... He took a fucking plane? Was that so hard to figure out? Is it such a crime that they didn't spell it out for you?

      Because I paid for the DVDs, like a sucker, because a lot of my friends said it was a great show.

      Your friends are right, it is a great show. You're just weird and picky, and should probably rent before you buy if it's going to make you so bitter. Seriously, what TV series meets your writing standards?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    67. Re:YAY! by Lahiru · · Score: 1
      Blakey Rat isn't weird and picky, he's right, Heroes is one poorly written show. And this coming from someone who actually thought it was fairly enjoyable (I'll confess, I even enjoy 24!). You could write a book about the bad plotting - my favourite - Hiro buggers off to train with his dad but doesn't bother to tell his buddy outside (it would have taken all of 20 seconds!), because the writers needed him to put himself in harms way so that Hiro could bail him out. The shoddiness of the writing is indefensible. Also, they liberally stole from the seminal Watchmen comic book, while Tim Kring denies having ever read it.

      "I never got the impression that they were sure no harm would come to Peter, that he was literally immortal, instead I got the impression Claire thought he would die"

      This is not supported by what is actually depicted in the show. It directly contradicts everything established upto that point. She should have shot him, instead of allowing his brother to seemingly sacrifice his life for no good reason. Or they could have tried.... I dunno, knocking him out? Btw, Tim Kring's reasoning behind why Peter doesn't fly away:

      Presented by TV Guide with that burning question, series creator Tim Kring pauses before saying, "You know, theoretically you're not supposed to be thinking about that." When assured that viewers are, Kring confirms that -- as many have theorized -- radioactive Peter's other powers were "incapacitated" at that pivotal moment, and "somewhere in there is the explanation" for having Nathan grab his bro and do the "flying man!" thing. "But the real explanation is that we wanted Nathan to show up and [save the day]!" "Yes, I will admit that there's a very tiny window of logic there," Kring continues with a laugh. "But what can I say? It's requires the proverbial suspension of disbelief."
      The proverbial "we don't mind insulting our audience, because they selectively ignore the show's flaws anyway", more like.

      "what TV series meets your writing standards" - Lost, Battlestar Galactica, The Wire, 30 Rock, Deadwood, The Sopranos, the list goes on. Heck, Heroes makes the writing in 24 look good, and that's saying something.

      I guess the point is, there's nothing wrong with liking the show, but please don't try and defend it as being good. There's a big difference between what you like and what is good (and no, it's not purely subjective); it's the height of fanboyism to try and justify your taste at the expense of reason. There's just no need to do so. It's OK to enjoy mindless entertainment. I do.
    68. Re:YAY! by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

      Heroes? Ugh! Waste of space, for kids only. Of all the programs on TV, BSG is one of the best and certainly the best in SciFi.

      I generally don't watch SciFi on TV any more because it is crap but BSG transcends that.

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
    69. Re:YAY! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Brilliant post, thank you.

    70. Re:YAY! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      This is not supported by what is actually depicted in the show.

      Sure it is. Claire doesn't know the extent of her or Peter's powers and she demonstrates this fear; it's just we the viewer who have already assumed that Claire and thus Peter are completely immortal and aren't afraid of Claire shooting her.

      Is that what bothers you? The difference between what a sci-fi attuned audience would know and infer about the heroes' abilities vs what the characters themselves know? Sure maybe that disconnect leaves the show open to this kind of criticism, but I don't think that makes the writing bad.

      "what TV series meets your writing standards" - Lost,

      You're freaking kidding me. You're lambasting Heroes for plot holes, then saying that the quintessential "make shit up that makes absolutely no sense, and refrain from explaining it because we sure as hell don't know what's going on either" show meets your standards for good writing? That's my mindless entertainment; I like watching it just to see what random changes occur to the plot and characters. They have built themselves the nice out that since pretty much everything is built around lies and deception, they can always change the explanation whenever they want. maybe that's how they out-do the Heroes writers -- realizing that internal consistency is only an obstacle if you reveal the rules.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    71. Re:YAY! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Well, seeing how I was born and raised in America, who should I blame then??

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    72. Re:YAY! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      The one where they did "Cops" had me laughing so hard I had tears streaming down my face, and I didn't even have any pot! The part where the hooker had her hand caught in the vending machine had me dying, that's what all the hookers I know are like.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    73. Re:YAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Claire doesn't know the extent of her or Peter's powers

      She knows that they can both suffer massive, fatal, ongoing brain trauma for hours and still come back to life with no lasting effects. She's experienced it herself and she's witnessed it directly with Peter. Her believing that a bullet could hurt him is the opposite of what the viewer has been shown at every available opportunity.

      This isn't a simple inconsistency, the writers went to great lengths to underline just how invincible they are, and specifically focused on brain trauma and coming back from the dead. And then they have her act the complete opposite in the last few minutes for no reason? No, that's not being picky, that's just awful writing.

      Agreed about Lost though.

    74. Re:YAY! by Lahiru · · Score: 1

      The characters already know this, it's been well established already - Peter already died and came back to life after getting a big chunk of glass stuck in his brain. Claire also knew that Peter had her power, and the extent of her power is well known to her, as the show ably demonstrated time and time again by having her needlessly maimed - you know, like when she got bumped by someone on the football field, fell to the ground and her head did a comical 180? Or when she DIED BY IMPALEMENT? Or when she was walked out of a burning building with her skin growing back instantaneously? Or when she hurled herself to her death from a considerable height MULTIPLE TIMES? Or when she crashed her car at high speed? I think Sylar 'killed' her in the locker room as well in one episode. Heck, the cop shot her at the behest of her father who knew full well that she'd live, and so she knows mere bullets can't kill her! How can you possibly claim that she doesn't know the extent of her powers, and by extension, Peter's, who, I remind you again, also came back to life in front of her very eyes? That's just ludicrous! I would not criticize this point if I believed there was a reason for the characters to have doubts.

      The fact is, the writers just don't have a clue, and it beggars belief that you can't see that. Remember the time Suresh tortures Sylar while hooking him up to some chemical that supposedly nullifies his powers, and then proceeds to torture him with a tuning fork (a comical scene in and of itself), a torture method that would only work if Sylar's powers were still working! (Of course, Sylar's powers were actually still working, but Suresh wasn't supposed to know that). What about the episode in the future (which was actually quite cool) where Sylar was the president in disguise, and yet he manages to hide this fact from both the power nullifying Haitian and the mind reading cop even though the cop is now head of Homeland Security and the Haitian is his right hand man! I suppose you're going to tell me that they were just too decent to use their powers around the President. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

      Whatever plot holes there are in Lost - and yeah, there are some - are small potatoes compared to Heroes. "Random changes occur to plot and characters"? Much of what has been revealed is pretty consistent. Granted, they can still drop the ball by the end, but the storytelling to get there has been stellar thus far. Lost is better written, acted, directed, edited, photographed, and probably catered than Heroes. Oh, and good writing doesn't only refer to plotting - there are also those little things like dialogue, tone, characterization, metaphor, thematic depth, pacing, and story structure in there as well, all areas where Heroes drops the ball. And for what it's worth, Lost isn't as well written as some of the cable shows I mentioned.

    75. Re:YAY! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      You're freaking kidding me. You're lambasting Heroes for plot holes, then saying that the quintessential "make shit up that makes absolutely no sense, and refrain from explaining it because we sure as hell don't know what's going on either" show meets your standards for good writing? That's my mindless entertainment; I like watching it just to see what random changes occur to the plot and characters. They have built themselves the nice out that since pretty much everything is built around lies and deception, they can always change the explanation whenever they want. maybe that's how they out-do the Heroes writers -- realizing that internal consistency is only an obstacle if you reveal the rules.

      First of all, nobody's saying Lost is necessarily a great show, it's just better-written than Heroes. I think that would be obvious to any neutral observer... Lost episodes don't (typically) waste half their time with filler subplots, Lost characters are actually likeable and generally don't do anything utterly, bone-headedly stupid. (It helps that the main character doesn't constantly whine.) Lost characters don't mysteriously disappear from one location then appear a day later in another, literally on the opposite side of the world, with no explanation or motivation. Lost doesn't pull nearly as many punches as Heroes-- characters, likeable characters, actually die during the course of the series. And when I watched season 1 of Lost, I went back to watch season 2... I'm sure as hell not going to watch season 2 of Heroes.

    76. Re:YAY! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Heck, the cop shot her at the behest of her father who knew full well that she'd live, and so she knows mere bullets can't kill her! How can you possibly claim that she doesn't know the extent of her powers, and by extension, Peter's, who, I remind you again, also came back to life in front of her very eyes?

      She knows that he "died" when he had a piece of glass jammed in his brain, and didn't come back until it was removed. How does she know what would happen if she blew his brains out the back of his skull? Would she have to scoop them back in and hope for the best? She knows getting shot in the chest doesn't kill her, how does she know that nothing else possibly can? She repeatedly asked her father about the extent of her powers, making it fully clear she did not in fact know whether she could survive any arbitrary injury because she'd never tried blowing her brains out, and from the time it was first mentioned she acted frightened of the prospect of shooting Peter because she didn't know what would happen.

      This is what I mean about Comic Book Guy-ing it out. You infer from what you've seen that she's unkillable, and thus presume that her character shouldn't have hesitated to shoot Peter. When in fact it makes perfect sense that when the moment came she was reluctant to do so, and Nathan "protect my little brother" Petrelli was the first to step up.

      Remember the time Suresh tortures Sylar while hooking him up to some chemical that supposedly nullifies his powers, and then proceeds to torture him with a tuning fork (a comical scene in and of itself), a torture method that would only work if Sylar's powers were still working! (Of course, Sylar's powers were actually still working, but Suresh wasn't supposed to know that).

      Uh, no, as Suresh specifies the chemical is supposed to prevent Sylar from controlling his powers, not eliminate them. And as super-hearing lady explained, and Sylar demonstrated when he first got it, if you can't control the super-hearing power then it is very much a form of torture. It was actually a pretty genius scene, but between not paying attention and being nit-picky (not a good combination!) you missed it. Oh well.

      I suppose you're going to tell me that they were just too decent to use their powers around the President.

      Why would the Haitian use his powers on "Nathan"? A subtle sense of practical humor? I'm assuming he uses them voluntarily, or he wouldn't do much good standing next to the cop. As to the cop, even in the future he was fairly crap at controlling his power, and Claire's dad had the mental discipline to avoid his powers even when being directly interrogated, Sylar at least matches him for mental discipline and would know to be careful around the cop who has no reason to be suspicious. What's so ludicrous about that?

      Again, you're thinking from your semi-omniscient third-person view as someone who knows Nathan has been replaced by Sylar. Having the characters take advantage of that viewpoint is what would be bad writing.

      And for what it's worth, Lost isn't as well written as some of the cable shows I mentioned.

      No shit, which is why I couldn't believe you listed it first. Lost is "pretty consistent" because they never explain anything, and when they do explain something half a season later they explain that the previous explanation was just a lie. The characterization is terrible, every time they want a character to step into the limelight they have to spend the whole episode providing enough back story to explain why the character then rushes off to do something that would have up to that point made no sense at all. And pacing? Seriously? The show is proceding practically in real-time and half the episodes literally nothing happens, not even character development since every character present is just lying. And personally I just don't consider "tense, guarded, and lying" to be good characterization especially when it applies to everyone on screen.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    77. Re:YAY! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Lost episodes don't (typically) waste half their time with filler subplots, Lost characters are actually likeable and generally don't do anything utterly, bone-headedly stupid. (It helps that the main character doesn't constantly whine.) Lost characters don't mysteriously disappear from one location then appear a day later in another, literally on the opposite side of the world, with no explanation or motivation.

      No, they waste entire episodes with filler subplots whose only purpose is to explain why a character suddenly runs off into the jungle to do something that would have otherwise made absolutely zero sense based on the character up to the point, and that ultimately amounts to nothing because whatever they thought they were doing turns out to be a lie, or result in just another mystery. Then the character gets forgotten for half a season, as does the mystery too.

      Lost characters practically teleport around that island willy-nilly, traipsing across the jungle, and always conveniently running into another group of people randomly traipsing across the jungle even though neither of them are following a trail and it's the middle of the night. It takes them months before they find the Other's camp despite traveling far and wide, but when they need a sense of urgency they're only a couple hours apart.

      I can't believe your so hung up on Mojinder taking a plane when Lost makes 24's "sure you can drive from one side of LA to another at rush hour during a commercial break!" look plausible.

      And when I watched season 1 of Lost, I went back to watch season 2... I'm sure as hell not going to watch season 2 of Heroes.

      That just means you like Lost more. Which is fine, like I said it's your opinion. And yeah, if you didn't like Season 1 of Heroes then you definitely wouldn't like Season 2, it's rather substantially worse. I still watch Lost, but only because I got over expecting the writers to know what was going on any more than the viewer does. I just think of it as X-Files On An Island and it's all good.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    78. Re:YAY! by Lahiru · · Score: 1

      Apart from your point about Suresh's torture session (I'll take your word for it; it's still a tenuous scene - Suresh seems to be taking a massive risk if Sylar loses 'control' of his considerable powers, don't ya think? His telekinesis could have ripped the room apart, but hey it's genius because Suresh managed to make all of Sylar's powers uncontrollable in a very precise plot convenient way - but forgivable), the rest of your comments demonstrate a wonderful ability to do the writer's jobs for them. I have to conclude that the only rational explanation for Claire is that she is actually retarded - if you had said that, I might have bought it. But no, you're right, after all of those things I listed (there may be more!), she still has good reason to doubt. Really. And Sylar, powerful as he is, chooses to keep close to him the two 'Heroes' who have the best chance of inadvertently exposing him, counting on no stray thoughts, the cop never reading his mind (just curious, when was Sylar's mental discipline demonstrated - and does he also think in another language like Claire's dad, which would certainly arouse at least curiosity if not suspicion, and why would the cop, who is a wanker in this future, not try to probe for thoughts and not be curious as to how Nathan has the mental prowess to block his powers), and the Haitian never using his ability within a given radius? (remember, his power affects an entire floor of a building - a power that presumably goes through walls but not floors and ceilings, though I suppose it's possible he can only project it along a horizontal plane [sarcasm there, he could still bend over to get it through the floor, though perhaps the concrete used for floors is different from walls and prevents power nullification field penetration. Heck, since it's a 2D power, why didn't super Peter Petrelli simply walk underneath each room and just poke his head through till he found the Haitian and then rip the floor out from under him? Oh yeah, the Haitian may have bent over!]) And the cop and the Haitian never once questioned the motives of the man who is mercilessly rounding up all of the other 'Heroes'?

      Also, nice job cherry picking the plot holes you can creatively conjure up explanations for. Where's your explanation for why Hiro doesn't tell Ando about his training, why Suresh doesn't kill Sylar when he gets the chance (having already proven he was willing to do so), why the ruthless Sylar doesn't kill Claire's dad when he gets the chance but instead locks him up and goes and has tea with her mother. Character consistency right there.

    79. Re:YAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did Claire get shot in the head?

      My mistake, she got shot in the chest and had her brain skewered by the branch or whatever it was. Either way, she can die and come back to life and have her brain messed up and repair itself.

      Peter got stabbed in the head and was 'dead' until they pulled the glass out, does that imply he'd survive getting his brains blown out and if he did would it stop the bomb?

      Yeah, it does, but even if it didn't, just shoot him in the chest then. And losing consciousness stopped him from blowing up earlier in the episode. In any case, the characters themselves believed it would stop the bomb because that's the plan they came up with.

      I never got the impression that they were sure no harm would come to Peter, that he was literally immortal

      That's precisely my point. Given everything that's happened up to that point, given the extreme lengths the writers have gone to to demonstrate how indestructible they are, the character's attitudes are completely unexpected and inexplicable.

      Season 1 had it's fair share of tolerable plot holes, but Season 2 was a doozy

      I wouldn't know. Geeks seem especially prone to the sunk-cost fallacy. How many people saw Star Wars 1, complained about how badly it sucked, then went to see 2, complained about how badly it sucked, and then went to see 3? Not me. When I realised just how bad Heroes was, I stopped watching. The definition of insanity: doing something over and over again, expecting different results.

    80. Re:YAY! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      His telekinesis could have ripped the room apart, but hey it's genius because Suresh managed to make all of Sylar's powers uncontrollable in a very precise plot convenient way - but forgivable

      Except they never showed telekinesis as being something that just "happened", whereas they showed super-hearing as something that was always on and took control to tune down. But of course Suresh was taking a huge risk. I think he knew that.

      the rest of your comments demonstrate a wonderful ability to do the writer's jobs for them. I have to conclude that the only rational explanation for Claire is that she is actually retarded - if you had said that, I might have bought it. But no, you're right, after all of those things I listed (there may be more!), she still has good reason to doubt.

      Yes, she does have reason to doubt, or at least she is portrayed as doubting, and since it is her or Peter's life that would end if it turns out that it isn't literal immortality, that counts for something. The writers did their job of showing the character's doubts, just because you don't have any doesn't mean she wouldn't. I'm not doing their job for them, I'm trying to undo all the work you did in your effort to ignore the characters in the story and treat it like you're playing a character in the Heroes RPG and the DM says "Peter is about to blow up--- What do you do?" and you check in the source book to see what would happen if you shot him.

      (just curious, when was Sylar's mental discipline demonstrated - and does he also think in another language like Claire's dad, which would certainly arouse at least curiosity if not suspicion, and why would the cop, who is a wanker in this future, not try to probe for thoughts and not be curious as to how Nathan has the mental prowess to block his powers)

      Dude has a brain like the watches he works on, and he treats his and others as though they are machines to be fiddled with and corrected until they work perfectly. He constantly demonstrates a ridiculous amount of self control, from feigning fear or anger or compassion, to picking up on new abilities right after he acquires them even if the original owner never did -- the super-hearing power being the one exception due to its downside, but Isaac's blood hadn't even dried and Sylar was painting the future. Hell he even feigned his own death until he had an opportunity to escape.

      Claire's dad only had to use tricks like thinking in Japanese because he was being directly interrogated by the cop who knew he was lying and trying to push his way into the guy's brain. The cop has no reason to be suspicious of "Nathan", Sylar doesn't have to somehow block the ability, all he has to do is avoid stray thoughts like "Boy, sure is great to be a mega-villain disguised as the President!" I think he has amply demonstrated discipline to do that.

      and the Haitian never using his ability within a given radius? (remember, his power affects an entire floor of a building - a power that presumably goes through walls but not floors and ceilings,

      What makes you think it's a "radius" effect? He nullifies Sylar's powers while Voice Command Girl is standing right next to him making Sylar obey. Seems more likely that it's a more personal ability just like his mind-wiping and he can nullify the powers of individuals he chooses. Otherwise, like I said, having him work with the cop would be pretty useless or he couldn't cancel a suspect's power and let the cop interrogate them at the same time. And just like he wouldn't nullify the cop's powers, he'd have no reason to nullify "Nathan's" powers either.

      Remember Claire's dad only said it was a field that suppressed powers on that floor because he didn't want to reveal that it was actually the Haitian doing it, and half the time he said this the Haitian was standing in the room. Just like he let them think it was the radioisotope that allowed them to be tracked by some computer system so as not to reveal that it was actually a lit

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    81. Re:YAY! by Lahiru · · Score: 1

      Truly, you have a dizzying intellect when it comes to this show. :) If it were up to me, you'd be on the Heroes writing staff in a heartbeat - it'd be a match made in heaven...

    82. Re:YAY! by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      Lost episodes don't (typically) waste half their time with filler subplots
      • The golf course episode
      • The van w/ beer episode
      • Sawyer and the boar
      • Hurley & Rose w/ the food
      • The whole Sun/Yin debacle
      • Shannon/Sayid, Hurley/Libby, Jack/Sawyer/Kate, romantic bullshit nuff said
      • ANY of the zillion "flashbacks" that add nothing to the "island story", nor "character development" since they beat you over the head with it a million times...i GET IT...kate "runs", sawyer "survives", jack "fixes", etc...we've known this shit from season 1, yet they "filler" this crap over and over
      • the list goes on...I don't know what you define as "filler subplots", but every freakin episode introduces a new "filler subplot" to me...the latest being "sayid the super spy" (where they spent nearly half an episode to get across the message "sayid is killing people in the future for ben"...uhhh, filler much?)

      Lost characters don't mysteriously disappear from one location then appear a day later in another
      • Walt, nuff said...he appears all over the damn place
      • Locke/Ben/the Others...all also possess damn near magical transportation powers. Or maybe you can explain to me how "triagulation" works without knowing a starting point, time, OR a course? (I'm talking about Ben's intercepting the Losties on their way to the transmitter)
      • Desmond...magically teleported out of an IMPLODING HATCH

      Lost characters are actually likeable and generally don't do anything utterly, bone-headedly stupid.
      Ahhhh, the coup de grace. Here goes:
      • Treating hostile characters like best buds...walking in front of them, with your back to them, with little attention on them...doing things they want just for the hell of it...this card has been played MULTIPLE times, and they get fucked _every time_. Some examples:
        • Jack giving the walkie to Ben when he asked for it. Result: Ben tells his people to kill the 3 Losties if they don't hear from him in a minute
        • Locke walking in front of and having his back to a hostile enemy he does _not trust_ who has a _gun_ while viewing a mass grave. Result: Locke gets shot.
      • The Lostie brain-dead ambush, spearheaded by Sayid the military mastermind. Result: They lose the boat
      • Not asking any goddamned questions that everyone in their right mind would be asking: it took Locke until mid-Season 4 to even THINK to question Ben about the monster, in even the most half-assed of manners. Did he get an answer? Hell no! Did Locke push? Of course not! Similarly, Jack withholds the videophone from the new psychic guy demanding answers...the new guy demands the phone first...Jack gives it...does the psychic ever provide answers? Hell no! Does Jack push? Of course not!
      • This list also goes on...everyone acts fantastically stupid all the time in this show, in exactly the fashion needed to advance the plot
  5. writers read... by techpawn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It was a fair deal and one that the companies can live with...
    Meaning that before it WASN'T a fair deal that the writers couldn't live with.

    I'm still not going to rush back to my television set over this.
    --
    Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    1. Re:writers read... by SQLGuru · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think we need to unionize Slashdot posters so that we can get a better deal, too. If it weren't for us, this site wouldn't make any money and what do we get for it? Articles 3 days after Digg had them? Typo's and grammatical errors in the summaries? ASCII porn?

      Layne

    2. Re:writers read... by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Funny

      Absolutely! I propose that all Slashdot posters get a 35% increase in pay right now!

    3. Re:writers read... by abaddononion · · Score: 4, Funny

      Terms seem reasonable. Granted. Get back to work. ~The Management

    4. Re:writers read... by techpawn · · Score: 0

      Absolutely! I propose that all Slashdot posters get a 35% increase in pay right now!
      Yeah.. and what's 35% of nothing again? I think we'll get that... Now, if we seek no flash ad on the site without having to use Ad Blockers...
      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    5. Re:writers read... by Firehed · · Score: 1

      I went ahead expecting you to ask for this and pre-negotiated you a 45% pay raise, retroactive since sign-up. Check is already in the mail.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    6. Re:writers read... by Floritard · · Score: 1

      Here, here! More ASCII porn!

    7. Re:writers read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I shall join your strike however I fear that this strike will raise the ire of the Church of Slashdotology so I choose to remain Anonymous.

    8. Re:writers read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If slashdotters actually got back to work, there wouldn't be any posts at all!

  6. No summer reruns? by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If the TV shows I watch were several months behind due to the strike, does this mean that the season will be shifted several months ahead and this summer won't be a graveyard of reruns like it usually is?

    --
    Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
    1. Re:No summer reruns? by Mickyfin613 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You may see a few new episodes in the Spring, but the writers won't be able to churn out scripts over night. Not under the *new* collective agreement, anyhoo. From what I understand new episodes are written over the summer, so I would imagine you'll have reruns (for the most part) until next fall.

    2. Re:No summer reruns? by themushroom · · Score: 1

      You've never watched "The King Of Queens", have you? Yes, you can write a whole episode that fast.

    3. Re:No summer reruns? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      If the TV shows I watch were several months behind due to the strike, does this mean that the season will be shifted several months ahead and this summer won't be a graveyard of reruns like it usually is?

      It could mean between and and fall (or later) it's nothing but reruns. Apparently 24 (not that it affects me) will be delayed until next January so they don't have to split it up.

      I'm sure there will be multiple shows that don't get new episodes until the fall/winter season.

      Expect the summer to be re-run graveyard as usual since fewer people are watching then and it's not worth rolling out new shows. They'll probably just trot out more reality TV, which they invented to counter the possibility of the last writer's strike.

      The void that is most TV nowadays isn't going to magically fill in quickly, it could easily be 7-8 months before you start seeing new episodes of some shows.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:No summer reruns? by Moonpie+Madness · · Score: 1

      To some extent yeah you will see a better summer, but some shows are forgoing summer. Advertisers don't like summer advertising, so networks just have less reason to keep the audience.

      24, namely, could probably show some stuff this summer, but has been pushed all to way to 2009.

    5. Re:No summer reruns? by zulater · · Score: 1

      Would that also mean that we can now sue the writers guild for making us fat by keeping us indoors watching TV during the summer instead of out taking care of the lawn? :)

    6. Re:No summer reruns? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      If the TV shows I watch were several months behind due to the strike, does this mean that the season will be shifted several months ahead and this summer won't be a graveyard of reruns like it usually is?

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You must be new to this T.V. business.
  7. earth-friendly programming by themushroom · · Score: 3, Funny

    Good that we have writers so we don't have to deal with reruns anymore.
    Now we can get back to rehashed stories with slapdash writing as usual.

    1. Re:earth-friendly programming by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the rehashed stories with slashdot writing you get here?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  8. will get paid for the reuse ... by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    make it 'refuse'.

  9. Why it matters? by stm2 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Is this "news for nerds"?

    --
    DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
    1. Re:Why it matters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because some nerds watch TV.

    2. Re:Why it matters? by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. /. needs more exciting, creative, boisterous headlines that have absolutely nothing to do with TFA. Creative writers come from the WGA. [/sarcasm]

  10. Effect on movies by sskagent · · Score: 1

    I'm much more into watching movies in theaters and on DVD, rather then TV. Since we've gone so long without movie scripts being written, does that mean that pretty soon we'll see a sudden lapse in new releases? Obviously the lag time for movies is much longer then TV.

    1. Re:Effect on movies by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I've been going through as many of Roger Ebert's Greatest Movies as I can find. Finally watched The Seven Samurai and the Rules of the Game this week. These movies are so damned good they put just about everything Hollywood does right now to shame. Kurosawa, in particular, is my new favorite director. What a genius.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Effect on movies by click2005 · · Score: 1

      I agree. Watch Hidden Fortress if you want to see C3PO & R2D2 done properly.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    3. Re:Effect on movies by gallwapa · · Score: 1

      The 2009 summer-winter is probably going to be devoid of all substance that may have been worth going to see...that or it will all feel "rushed"

    4. Re:Effect on movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah ... movie scripts are easy. Just take an old script, run it through sed to change the the charater and location names, re-order the scenes, re-hash the old dialog with new buzzwords. Academy Awards here I come!

      Seriously ... they just made a movie on Underdog. If they're scraping that low in the barrel, there's gotta be a few more crappy old cartoons or sitcoms they can make a movie out of.

    5. Re:Effect on movies by sskagent · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to tack the word 'movie' in your title and your golden!

    6. Re:Effect on movies by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      I'm much more into watching movies in theaters and on DVD, rather then TV. Since we've gone so long without movie scripts being written, does that mean that pretty soon we'll see a sudden lapse in new releases? Obviously the lag time for movies is much longer then TV. Probably not. Movie scripts are usually written 2+ years before the release date, so the gap wouldn't occur for quite a while. Additionally, writers are allowed to write new scripts on their own during the strike and then sell them to studios after the strike ends. There will probably be a flurry of movie pitches in the next few weeks, which will fill whatever gap would have been otherwise created by the strike.
    7. Re:Effect on movies by himurabattousai · · Score: 1
      Seven Samurai is such a depressing movie, but it's so perfectly shot, pulls all the right emotional strings, etc. From what Japanese I've learned so far, even the subtitles are quite well done. I wish more movies like that were readily accessible to American audiences. I suppose you could call this another of those circumstances where someone else perfected what we invented, but that's really what it seems to be. I don't think that we have no creativity here, but rather that we don't demand it from people who get paid rather handsomely to come up with something new every now and then.

      That's why I don't watch television, aside from House or MXC, much anymore. Flipping through the channels, it seems that I've already seen everything that's on, even if they're all "new" episodes. Despite what some people who know me say, I do have better things to do with my time than watch recycled crap and/or re-runs.

      --
      "osake no hou ga, biiru yori ii" to omotteiru.
    8. Re:Effect on movies by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Seven Samurai is such a depressing movie, but it's so perfectly shot, pulls all the right emotional strings, etc. From what Japanese I've learned so far, even the subtitles are quite well done. I wish more movies like that were readily accessible to American audiences. I suppose you could call this another of those circumstances where someone else perfected what we invented, but that's really what it seems to be. I don't think that we have no creativity here, but rather that we don't demand it from people who get paid rather handsomely to come up with something new every now and then.


      I'm rather lucky that my local mom-and-pop video store is smart enough to have a rather good international section, with a lot of the Criterion discs. They have probably about two hundred foreign titles (excluding British titles, that section must have about five hundred titles). They have a great "Seven Movies for Seven Days" rental scheme, so I can load up on a week's viewing.

      I don't know what Hollywood's problem is. And 2007 does look to be something of an exception with a number of movies that look to be rather good. I'm eager to see No Country For Old Men, which is getting high praise from every corner. But generally, I think they really are falling down on the job, but because so many people aren't exposed to world cinema, but rather hang off the summer and Christmas blockbusters, they're missing what I'm discovering is a world of incredible movies with brilliant direction, writing and acting, simply because the movies are made by people outside the big-studio system or the barely independent indie scene, all of which are largely North American anyways.

      That's why I don't watch television, aside from House or MXC, much anymore. Flipping through the channels, it seems that I've already seen everything that's on, even if they're all "new" episodes. Despite what some people who know me say, I do have better things to do with my time than watch recycled crap and/or re-runs.


      I'll admit to enjoying House, although the fact that I'm a big Sherlock Holmes fan probably plays into that. Of course, you watch House because of House. The weekly medical mystery aspect and the other characters are simply a justification for House to behave badly and brilliantly.
      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  11. Finally... by abaddononion · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can get back to enjoying "The Daily Show" and the "Colbert Report", instead of those generic knock-offs, "A Daily Show" and the "Colbert Report".

  12. Whew! by arizwebfoot · · Score: 1

    Now I don't have to worry about them making a "LOST" meets Gilligan.

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
    1. Re:Whew! by themushroom · · Score: 1

      You sure? I saw the ad for the season finale and I could swear the ghosts of Bob Denver and Alan Hale, Jr. were in the Island Six.

  13. Grats to the writers. by JKSN17 · · Score: 0

    Grats to the writers on getting what they feel they deserved and kudos to the studios and networks for solving this issue in a swift manner...Oh wait, they didn't. They drug it out and exposed us all to more "reality" television! At least we have some hope of seeing some quality shows return to tv, such as, Heroes, CSI, Family Guy, and my wifes' personal favorite Grey's Anatomy. I know Strike's are hard and messy and sometimes can be very ugly and violent. So I am honestly happy to see it end.

  14. Writers Strike? When? Too much WoW, I guess.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. How many people on Slashdot actually watch the garbage on television? Mostly, I'm playing with my kids, talking to my wife, reading or playing online - in that order...

    There's a lot more to do away from the Idiot Box.

  15. TV? by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Im sorry, but its too late.

    I took the plunge and got rid of 'pay-tv' once and for all right before this strike, and its amazing how little I actually miss it. And amazing how I was spending over $70/month for just regular ad-laced channels. Yes, paying to watch advertisements is not how I want to spend my money anymore. That INCLUDES the 'ads' that get thrown right into the shows, soap opera style(thats how they got their name after all).

    The internet is now my primary tool of information sourcing and entertainment. The TV industry missed the boat, the same way the music industry did. The only thing that made it take as long as it did was the bandwidth difference between audio and video.

    The TV is dead, long live TV!

    1. Re:TV? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      You're single, aren't you?

      Love to do that myself, but I'm not the only one in the house.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they were soap operas because the soap companies were their major sponsors originally (and in some cases still). There was not blatant ad placement within the programs, and the few I have seen on daytime today actually probably have fewer ad placements then most prime time shows.

      So, next time you want to spew that tiny bit of knowledge you have please get it right. It wasn't about placement of the ads. They were soap operas because of their sponsorship, not because of the ads being within the original soaps.

    3. Re:TV? by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 1

      No, Im not single.

      Im glad to hear you would love to rid yourself of it too. Im sorry you cant right now, and I hope you one day find yourself with someone who deserves to be with you, by respecting the way you want to live life. More importantly, how you DO NOT want to live life.

    4. Re:TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I;d have to agree... I downgraded my TV subscription significantly (50% less monthly fee). My decision had nothing to do with the strike (I really don't care), but I've noticed how little I miss watching endless CSI reruns and crappy movie channels.
      I still have pay-per-view if I have the need for a movie and the basic US and Canadian networks. That's all I need.

    5. Re:TV? by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      I haven't paid for cable since college, and that was shared. I shoot to watch a few shows when they're on, but I can just as well hit them on the internet if I miss. Football and movies/episodes on DVD is all I really use my TV for. I don't miss it.

    6. Re:TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is what this strike was about. Now you're going to use the intertubes to get your entertainment, and if a writers content is distributed via the intertubes s/he will be compensated for it.

    7. Re:TV? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      We got rid of our TV a few months ago when we realised that no one in the house had watched it for over a month and it was taking up space. I still watch shows on rented DVDs, and I have started using the BBC iPlayer now it works in a browser, but over-the-air, watch-when-they-feel-like is just a model that I don't feel has any attraction anymore, and I certainly don't want my enjoyment to be interrupted by adverts (we get about half as many as the USA, and it's still too many).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:TV? by ThousandStars · · Score: 1
      I read somewhere -- I think the NYT -- a comparison between this strike and the steelworkers' strikes in the 1980s: in both cases, the striking workers in both industries might be on the cusp of changes that make their strikes irrelevant.

      Anyway, I suspect the relative power of TV as currently delivered has reached its peak. Over the long run, this and the rise of the Internet seems like a good thing, but then again my entertainment of choice is reading, as the link no doubt shows.

    9. Re:TV? by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, things were going great with my girlfriend, but in the end, I realized that she doesn't fundamentally respect the way I want to live life. That's right: we couldn't agree on which TV package to get.

      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    10. Re:TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    11. Re:TV? by houghi · · Score: 1

      If you are talking about the kids: a tv is not a babysitter. If the kids are older: let then pay for it. If it is your SO: what does she do outside the kitchen anyway?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    12. Re:TV? by mahlerfan999 · · Score: 1

      Agreed (on cable being a waste of time). I'm about ready to cancel cable. What I don't like about it-- (a) commercials (b) sd channels are far too compressed (c) not enough hd channels (d) all of the cable channels put together still don't offer enough new and interesting content (e) price is too high for what they're offering I prefer renting movies and tv shows. Netflix, blockbuster and hollywood all offer reasonable plans that are cheaper than cable and provide better picture and audio quality and no commercials.

    13. Re:TV? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Jonathan? Is that you?

  16. Journeyman by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Journeyman. It's got time-travel and babes, and time-traveling babes.

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    1. Re:Journeyman by tripmine · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry bro, I think it's Canceled
      Too bad. I really liked that show too.

    2. Re:Journeyman by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Journeyman. It's got time-travel and babes, and time-traveling babes. That's not geeky enough... try Quantum Leap.
    3. Re:Journeyman by Cerberus7 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it was one of the few gems on TV these days. It kept getting better every week, too, which is rare. It ended extremely well, too, considering they didn't get to finish the over-arcing story. Ah, well.

      --
      I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
    4. Re:Journeyman by fracai · · Score: 1

      Pfft, Journeyman was great until they abandoned the hints that the time travel was the work of some scientific research group and brought in the psychic and some "rare" passing of a comet on the birthdays of the two travelers. Ignore the Deus Ex Machina (heck leave that research group to be just an investigation of the travelers) and you've got a great plot about the time travelers and how they seem to be dwindling.

      I think what got me about the psychic was that they brought it up just like they always are.
      Skeptic - "I don't believe in psychics."
      Believer - "This one is different because of X."
      Skeptic - "She got lucky."
      Psychic - "I just made a prediction that unlike all my others is actually relevant and mysterious."
      All - "Wow! That explains everything."

      --
      -- i am jack's amusing sig file
    5. Re:Journeyman by killjoy966 · · Score: 1

      Probably because it was canceled.

      --

      Sigs are for suckers.

  17. As a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    As a Canadian, I'm looking forward to violating the copyright on your writer's new material.

    Hope the International Intellectual Property-hoser Alliance has taken into account any price changes due to this agreement in their industry 'loss' report. Wouldn't want them to miss squeezing any more profits out of Canada, eh?

  18. Did they ditch the DVD demand? by Robotech_Master · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everyone talking about the strike is talking about the terms for Internet streaming/new media.

    I'm curious as to why nobody's mentioning the writers' other big demand, for an increased royalty on DVD sales. Did they drop that demand as part of a compromise?

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
    1. Re:Did they ditch the DVD demand? by steppin_razor_LA · · Score: 1

      It was dropped early on. That was a battle that was lost many contracts ago. WGA management (IMHO wisely) chose to focus there energies instead on the future (Internet/new media residuals).

      The other "major" demand that was dropped was jurisdiction over "reality TV" and animation.

      --
      Evolution: love it or leave it
    2. Re:Did they ditch the DVD demand? by dctoastman · · Score: 1

      New media refers to DVDs as it is a new medium for the TV shows to be distributed on. So, they actually got that. What they didn't have:

      Timely residuals on DVD sales and ad revenue generated by online streaming, union regulations for content created especially for such ventures (DVD bonus features, "webisodes", etc.), and jurisdiction over reality and animated shows (currently covered by another union or none at all).

      They have two of those now. The residuals and union regulations on new media ventures. They don't have the jurisdiction on reality and animation.

    3. Re:Did they ditch the DVD demand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      will get paid for the reuse of content on new media when the studios get paid.

      Sounds like DVD to me.

    4. Re:Did they ditch the DVD demand? by dghcasp · · Score: 2, Informative

      From The Economist's coverage:

      The writers made other concessions too: they for instance dropped their demand for a higher share of money from DVDs. They also gave up trying to get reality television and animation covered by union terms.

      HTH. HAND.

  19. the battle is over by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, who got screwed the most in this one? I'm assuming the writers since the studios have deeper pocketses.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:the battle is over by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, who got screwed the most in this one? I'm assuming the writers since the studios have deeper pocketses.

      The audiences. The studios will try to gouge us to recoup any concessions they made, and the pipeline for new stuff has run dry.

      We'll have a drought of work over the next little while. Eventually, they'll go back to writing the same old tired sitcoms. The content won't magically get any better, in fact, the studio system will fall back more on formulas to try to get greater return on investment.

      On the plus side, the studios will have resurrected the Oscars before their entire awards season is a bust.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:the battle is over by Squirmy+McPhee · · Score: 1

      On the plus side, the studios will have resurrected the Oscars before their entire awards season is a bust.

      Sure, if you call that a plus. All it means to me is that the TV Guide channel will be useless as an actual TV guide channel for yet another night while they show has-been and would-be celebrities prowl the red carpet.

    3. Re:the battle is over by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you call that a plus. All it means to me is that the TV Guide channel will be useless as an actual TV guide channel for yet another night while they show has-been and would-be celebrities prowl the red carpet.

      *laugh* You miss my sarcasm, sir. :-P

      Personally, I don't watch anything on any channel which would be showing coverage of the Oscars, and I suspect a good chunk of the stuff I watch may not have any input from the WGA. Network TV has bored me to tears for some years now.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:the battle is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One has to wonder, though, about unintended consequences. As I understand it, writers are frequently out-of-work for some portion of the year; this strike simply represents a synchronized, extended out-of-work period. What do they do during that time? I'm guessing that they continue to write, working on personal projects -- which probably are not new episodes of existing sitcoms. And now that they have the green light to collaborate with the industry, I think they will try to cash in on any new work. I think we can expect to see an increase in new movie and TV series proposals as well as new offerings in novels, video games, and comic books. Maybe we'll even see an increase in independent productions. And perhaps, for a brief period two years from now, there will be no movies in the theaters that are reimaginings of 80's TV shows.

    5. Re:the battle is over by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      So, who got screwed the most in this one? I'm assuming the writers since the studios have deeper pocketses. Actually, the freelance writers got screwed the most, but that's nothing new as they have always gotten the shaft. Dirty little secret about the "writing industry": a huge portion of the writing is done by freelancers who essentially have their work bought up whole for a flat amount up front. The writers who make the big bucks are the credited staff writers, the ones who take the hard work of the freelance writers and screw with it until it looks like all the other crap on TV. Those are the guys who got all the concessions in the new contract, because they're largely the ones who get royalties (as they retain the rights to their work). WGA sent me a shitload of letters, "come join us on the picket lines, fight for your rights". Oh, you mean fight for your rights to continue to charge me union dues for the "privilege" of writing for the screen? Fight for the rights of a small minority of writers to demand enough money to buy another antique brass espresso machine and a house on the beach to put it in, while we still get told by producers "I'll give you $8,000 for the script, but we get the rights to it"? Fuck those shitheads. They didn't get screwed. They just slightly renegotiated the collaborative screwing of everyone else.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  20. /cry by alexgieg · · Score: 1

    Writers Strike Officially Over
    Sad.
    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  21. Hot damn! by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    No more of this intellectually-insulting, amateurish garbage!

    I for one welcome our intellectually-insulting, professional garbage producing overlords.

  22. Too bad... by Myrkridian42 · · Score: 1

    I was hoping the studios would be bull-headed enough to hold out until the Oscars, causing it to be cancelled. (just like the golden globes) NBC'd then be out millions in ad revenue. Or better, they'd try to hold them anyway with no jokes for the host to tell, and no actors to receive the awards since they won't cross the picket line outside. That would have convinced them to negotiate.

  23. Maybe too late. Already weened. by bigredradio · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unrelated to the writers strike, I got rid of my television and cable. I use the internet for news and watch movies with a digital projector. After a couple of months, I not only didn't miss it, but realized a big quality of life increase. More time with the kids, actually eating at the dinner table, etc.

    I wonder how many people turned to other entertainment venues due to the strike. If there is NOTHING good on, I am sure some people cut back on their tv watching. Now that viewers have so many options (ie netflix, internet downloads, itunes tv, youtube, dvd kiosks, etc) this could not have come at a worse time. I am curious if this writers strike was the tipping point for a lot of people to ween themselves from their tvs. Not from shows all together, but the old standard of scheduling your life around when your show comes on and sitting through commercials.

    1. Re:Maybe too late. Already weened. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Unrelated to the writers strike, I got rid of my television and cable. I use the internet for news and watch movies with a digital projector. After a couple of months, I not only didn't miss it, but realized a big quality of life increase. More time with the kids, actually eating at the dinner table, etc.

      We don't have cable, either, but we certainly use our TV a fair amount. Projectors require a very dark room, usually a dedicated room, which we don't have the luxury of owning, so a large LCD TV works much better.

      For TV, all the best shows are available on BitTorrent. We especially like documentaries from Discovery and BBC.

    2. Re:Maybe too late. Already weened. by morari · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I can relate, though oppositely. I hadn't had any television service for a few years (not even PBS!), but just recently obtained a cable connection to the world. It doesn't cost me anything, so I didn't see the harm. Now, however, I find myself and my loved ones watching television far too often. Most of the time is spent just idly looking for something to watch, or watching something that no one really cares about but isn't as mediocre as whatever else may be on. Before we used to watch a lot of films together, which felt a lot more gratifying and only happened two to fours hours a day. Now however, my Netflix subscription doesn't seem to matter as much since we don't watch a daily film or two.

      Television is awful, and it continually spirals farther downward. And honestly, I never saw much of a difference between having writers and not having writers around.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    3. Re:Maybe too late. Already weened. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Well, I'll stick with a nice large TV. Better for the gaming.

      And I'll still eat in front of the TV. It's multitasking. It's efficient. :-) I even bought special plates that they use in mental institutions to reduce spills. :-D

      I've been considering going strictly to DVD for television shows. I'm already doing that with Dexter because I won't subscribe to Showtime for one show. Besides, I still don't forgive them for canceling Dead Like Me.

      Everything hits DVDs eventually, even stuff with short runs like Firefly, and Netflix reduces the cost to a minimal amount It's about $1 a rental for my rate of turnover + a few cents for blank media if I want to keep a copy.

      I've fallen away from BitTorrent. A few too many broken files and weird video codecs. Just gimme a disc.

    4. Re:Maybe too late. Already weened. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      My TV watching dropped BEFORE the writers strike. Right now, there are 4 shows that I give a *bleep* about. 24 (not on now), Heroes (ditto), Prison Break (close to season finale), and Terminator. Move over, BSD, TV is dying!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    5. Re:Maybe too late. Already weened. by Aladrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For years I have only watched shows that I want to watch. I have not flipped channels, searching for something to watch, in all that time.

      What is my secret?

      I have hobbies. Too many of them. TV shows are each a hobby and I am drawn to the interesting ones like a moth to a flame. But the boring ones interest me not at all, and channel flipping less so. I've always got something else I've rather do.

      The problem is not that 'television is awful', the problem is that you have nothing else you'd rather be doing. Games, playing guitar, making model planes... Anything is better for you than mindlessly channel-flipping.

      I seem like I'm preaching, but I'm not. It's simply the answer to your problem.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    6. Re:Maybe too late. Already weened. by archen · · Score: 1

      myself and my loved ones watching television far too often. Most of the time is spent just idly looking for something to watch, or watching something that no one really cares about but isn't as mediocre as whatever else may be on.

      Sad but true. Yet to be fair I find myself doing the same thing on the Internet. If I don't have a specific thing to do or look up, I find I just randomly surf for whatever. As often as not I end up on Wikipedia actually reading something which is theoretically educational. The real devil is in the details with TV. If a show you want to watch is on at 5:30, you may turn it on at 5:00 and just watch whatever. Afterwards the show you may flip around "to see what else is on". An hour show can easily waste another hour in watching things you have no interest in. I'd actually say that's the norm.

    7. Re:Maybe too late. Already weened. by kabocox · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many people turned to other entertainment venues due to the strike. If there is NOTHING good on, I am sure some people cut back on their tv watching. Now that viewers have so many options (ie netflix, internet downloads, itunes tv, youtube, dvd kiosks, etc) this could not have come at a worse time. I am curious if this writers strike was the tipping point for a lot of people to ween themselves from their tvs. Not from shows all together, but the old standard of scheduling your life around when your show comes on and sitting through commercials.

      I grew up in the 80s. This device that you might not have heard of called a VCR did that for us. I hear a new improved device called TIVO has been invented. Which is like the magic of VCRs with out the tapes!

      I couldn't tell you how little that my family ever views "live" TV. If we want to watch a TV series, we generally buy the season DVDs. My wife's got her 5 seasons of Smallville. I've got all of B5. We bought Fraggle Rock and The Muppet Show Season DVDs for the kids. My kids really don't know what ads during TV is all about. They know how to load DVDs and watch what they want when we let them watch TV. This writers strike hasn't affected my family because we've not regularly boardcast TV in something like close to 7-8 years now. I can't say that missing the entire realty TV show thing/suvivor spin offs was a negative.

    8. Re:Maybe too late. Already weened. by Enigma2175 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unrelated to the writers strike, I got rid of my television and cable. Why is it that every time there is a television thread, area man has to show up? Isn't there some sculpting you need to do or some Proust you need to re-read?
      --

      Enigma

    9. Re:Maybe too late. Already weened. by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      I used to do that, but when I got a DVR/DVD recorder from Toshiba that really changed the way we watch TV, although it seems like we might watch more now because we tend to watch more shows that require seeing every episode, but we find that we enjoy what we watch more, and we don't watch just to see what is on.

      1. The quality of what we record is more to our interest than the average TV programming. Less interesting programming has no interest now.
      2. Commercials are now gone, even if we choose to start watching just halfway through the program. Watching a program as it airs is less enticing because we would have to watch (mostly repetitive) commercials.

      The quality of life difference is huge between before and now. We get to watch what we want, when we want, and in less time. I no longer feel like I'm missing out on going to the theater, because I know most movies will eventually come to my home, so I no longer feel the need to waste a gallon of gas and an hour (driving, waiting in line, previews) to watch a movie. I have almost no interest in going to the theater, and I had gift certificates to go to a free movie go unused for a year. Nothing at the theater is worth the time or inconvenience. Also, some stuff that seems interesting loses our interest after we've already gone to the effort of recording it but I don't feel like I've lost anything because I haven't gone to any effort beyond finding it in the listings and spending a minute to record it.

      We might move soon to a location that doesn't have cable, and I don't know how my DVR will work with the digital converter we'll need next year for over the air digital TV. That might be the thing that gets us to drop TV as a family pass time.

    10. Re:Maybe too late. Already weened. by fbriere · · Score: 1

      The problem is not that 'television is awful', the problem is that you have nothing else you'd rather be doing. Since I don't have any mod points, I'll just say it out loud: this was the most insightful take I've heard on the whole "TV == shit" thread. Thank you.
    11. Re:Maybe too late. Already weened. by DJ+Katty · · Score: 1

      I had quite the opposite effect. Though hardly better for you, I went off searching of other televisionary exploits and take a look. I got into Doctor Who, Top Gear.. okay, more like I finally decided to take a look at BBC America and see what was going on.

      That and I finally got around to seeing what Battlestar Galactica was all about. I feel stupid for not watching sooner.

    12. Re:Maybe too late. Already weened. by fbriere · · Score: 1

      Everything hits DVDs eventually, In the US? Sure, I guess. (Although, where's my Daria box set?)

      Once you move on to smaller markets, however, DVD distribution becomes less profitable, especially for older series (where royalties can be problematic).

      Of all the TV I once taped on VHS, almost every American show is now available on DVD, while almost no local show is. (It is getting better for newer series, though.)
    13. Re:Maybe too late. Already weened. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      I use the internet for news and watch movies with a digital projector

      I've got to say, I do the same, and there really is no comparison. Especially because I can stream movies onto the projector right off of my harddrive ... and we all know how easy it is to get movies onto your harddrive these days.

    14. Re:Maybe too late. Already weened. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Unrelated to the writers strike, I got rid of my television and cable. Why is it that every time there is a television thread, area man has to show up? Because he's bored out of his mind, obviously :-p
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    15. Re:Maybe too late. Already weened. by tuomoks · · Score: 0

      Should not but your reference is a little off in /. - remember "The Onion is not intended for readers under 18 years of age." There are some things here which should be screened out in ./ as sarcasm, unions, economy, etc , they just don't work too well with unskilled and undeveloped personalities, and I don't mean auto workers.

    16. Re:Maybe too late. Already weened. by jb68321 · · Score: 1

      Same here. I moved into a small house with my boyfriend, and we already get free (somewhat reliable) internet from a small business across the street, so we had absolutely no reason/desire to pay for a cable line here. For the last few years, I'd been using MythTV to block out the commercials and only record shows I liked, so it was odd when the first few Fridays came along and I had no pile of Daily Show/Mythbusters/etc episodes to watch. I got over it pretty quickly though... I spend more time with my newly-adopted dog and doing things around the house.

      Really, there are so many reasons using the internet & a projector for information/amusement is better than watching TV, but here are a few that I noticed:

      1. On the internet, it's easier to control what I see/focus on. I control the direction of my attention by clicking only on things I'm interested in... I'm not constantly forced into some particular sequence of footage/information by a large corporation. Ad blockers both in Firefox and on my router turn ads into errors, which are easy to ignore. Ads on the internet in general (usually) are off to the side anyways, so it's not like having to watch commercials for 5 minutes just to see the last 20 seconds of some show that sucks anyways.

      2. Quality of news is much better, with a little work on my part. The "sound byte" mentality is gone on online news sources... stories without decent information are plainly obvious, and with a few clicks and some typing I can get the -whole- story about whatever's going on. Plus I generally check a few different news sources... say the NY Times, my local paper, Slashdot, etc to get different sets of news, if I have time. I can see news in any language I want, about anywhere, etc. In general, it takes minutes instead of hours to get the news I want.

      3. It's not flashy and disruptive, and it's naturally "paused". Compared to regular cable/satellite/broadcast without a TiVo/MythTV sort of setup, it's much easier to casually surf the 'net while interacting with other people than it is to watch TV while actually holding conversations. I agree that there are some similarities between the dead-pan look we kids have in front of the computer as compared to the look older generations have seen for years in front of the TV, but the internet is actually less captivating and time-consuming IMHO without requiring some thinking and input... hey, at least you're thinking instead of just sitting and being fed corporate crap. Pausing internet games/online shows/news broadcasts isn't such a big deal, everyone can do it, and the internet games are less intense than video games, etc. anyways. I've seen TV shows start verbal fights because someone interrupts, but I've never seen something like that with the internet.

      4. Projectors/cheaper alternatives + movies provides a much more efficient & higher quality entertainment option We recently got a projector here and watched so many movies in the last few months, backtracking through the years of movies that I never saw. I was amazed at the quality of movies compared to the quality of TV shows. When it's just as hard to acquire either, you realize quickly that movies are a much better option! They're more concise, less melo-dramatic, and generally more tasteful, because one movie is the complete work and has much more money put into it (in general) compared to a similar TV episode. It's actually quite amusing to see older versions of newer movies, if you run out of new ones to watch and can't find anything better to do. I also noticed that we invite people over much more often now to watch on our "big screen" (ie white wall)... movies are much more of a social thing.

      Anyways, I hope more people in America wake up and realize that TVs are not necessary for survival... I know it's hard to be productive at home when everyone works until really late every night and comes home tired, etc (Ive been there), but it's something our culture needs to get over.

    17. Re:Maybe too late. Already weened. by syousef · · Score: 1

      What is my secret? I have hobbies.

      I have hobbies too. However when I'm exhausted none of my hobbies are as compelling as watching TV. However I also tend to be selective in what I watch (except my wife loves Reality TV and I do end up watching some of that mind numbing shite so I can spend more time with her)

      Also hobbies cost time and money. If either are scarce the hobbies don't get a look in, whereas TV requires no effort. THAT is why it's become so compelling. Most of us are working our lives away and when we are at home are too exhausted after chores etc. to start launching into the hobbies.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  24. Great! by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 1

    Now I can ignore the new shows, rather than just ignoring the reruns.

    --
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    1. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  25. There hasn't been any new TV programming? by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
    wow. I didn't notice. It seemed to be the same old crap as the crap I used to watch. The Daily Show and Colbert had more interviews, and I liked that. And Bill Maher took questions from the internets, so I guess I did notice some changes, but over all, next to the RIAA, entertainment TV is the one industry I truly don't give a shit about.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  26. I haven't decided if I care or not by Zen · · Score: 1

    Kinda like the Hockey strike. We all found other things to do instead of watch tv or hockey. If it's going to take almost two more months before everything on the air is new again, by that time it will have been close to 6 months with very limited new material and then it will (probably) be summer rerun season. Am I going to go back to vegging on the couch for 3 hours every night when the shows come back on? I've severely cut back on my tv watching and I don't really miss it. I don't think I'm the only one. Sure, I've been hoping that they're going to bring back some shows (24 & numb3rs). But I doubt I'll go back to watching all the other stuff since I've already broken the habit.

  27. Writers are too greedy. FAIL! by readgs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why should the writers get any of the profits? They get paid for a job...done. They're not taking the risk on a show that will flop like the networks do. It's just like owning a business. You take a high risk because you're responsible for your company succeeding, but you could also make more as the owner. The employees get paid for doing there work...and can go home to their families.

    The writers and the networks get a big fat FAIL!

    http://wwwfail.com/?url=slashdot.org%2Farticle.pl%3Fsid%3D08%2F02%2F13%2F1724211
  28. Re:News for Nerds???? by gfreeman · · Score: 1

    What is this "dating" of which you speak?

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  29. Terrible News! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    I'm really disappointed that this strike is over. I was hoping it would continue indefinitely, until the major TV networks were all out of business.

  30. Re:News for Nerds???? by abigor · · Score: 1

    I guess it's because writers now get revenue for material that gets distributed online, and given how the battles around here rage about that stuff, it seems relevant.

  31. Monopoly wins again. by Zot · · Score: 1

    Another monopoly holds its customers hostage.
    Slashdot usually hates monopolies.
    What about this time?

    The labor monopoly held their customers hostage and got away with it.

    1. Re:Monopoly wins again. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      If you don't see the difference between bottom-up power structures and top-down power structures, then I really hope you don't vote.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  32. Nothing will change by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To the people who think that the American People (TM) have used the writers strike to go forth and do without television, leading to a new utopia, I'd like to remind you all of the 1994 baseball player's strike and how nobody ever bought a stadium ticket again after that, causing the death of major league baseball.

    1. Re:Nothing will change by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      Of course it didn't kill it. But it made way for -other- entertainment to get its foot in the door. I can't find anything to cite now, but I remember hearing that it's never been as popular as it once was and that strike was why.

      If this strike had lasted as long, it would have had the same effect.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    2. Re:Nothing will change by MrWhitefolkz · · Score: 1

      I stopped caring about baseball after that. Ever since Matt Williams, who was on pace to break the single season home run record at the time, of the SF Giants had his season cut short due to the strike, I've watched maybe 5 games (all World Series games at that) and haven't been to a stadium to see a baseball game since... and attendance numbers for baseball were pretty low I believe until the home run record was broken...

  33. about time by amigabill · · Score: 1

    While I really should be doing something better with my time, I'm glad to see this is over. I'd hate to find myself flipping through nothing but "reality" shows. I just hope that the language in the new contract is not specifically tied to any particular technologies by name so we have to do this every 10 years or so when technology changes. I'd like to see them get what they want regardless of how delivery technologies evolve and change into completely different and new things.

  34. Very disappointed.... by Dmala · · Score: 1

    I was really hoping that the strike would last long enough and the networks would get desperate enough for reality TV to devolve into full on bloodsport. Shows like "The Moment of Truth" and the return of "American Gladiators" were a step in the right direction, but I was getting psyched up for chainsaw duels and auto racing with machine guns. Now that the writers are back it'll probably take another 20 years to sink that low.

  35. Just Wait Till You Have Kids! by tjstork · · Score: 1

    I took the plunge and got rid of 'pay-tv' once and for all right before this strike,

    Once you have your first child, suddenly, UNCLE TELEVISION will become your best friend.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Just Wait Till You Have Kids! by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amazing how many people share that same assumption. You may want to spend some time and take a hard look at the lifestyle you are providing to your children.

      Maybe you missed what I said in stating the importance of the INTERNET over the importance of TV in providing the same services. Perhaps you should be more concerned that the rest of the kids in your childs age group are comfortably using the internet as a replacement for TV, while your children are starting blankly at a screen.

      Im sorry to hear about the parenting your children received, but that was your choice.

    2. Re:Just Wait Till You Have Kids! by Digi-John · · Score: 1

      Maybe you missed what I said in stating the importance of the INTERNET over the importance of TV in providing the same services. Perhaps you should be more concerned that the rest of the kids in your childs age group are comfortably using the internet as a replacement for TV, while your children are starting blankly at a screen.

      Yes, I find that having kids stare blankly at a monitor, watching whatever stupid low-resolution crap is on Youtube is MUCH better than TV. Or playing flash games all day. Because this is how most kids use the Internet.

      --
      Klingon programs don't timeshare, they battle for supremacy.
    3. Re:Just Wait Till You Have Kids! by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 1

      If your children want to watch stupid crap, it doesnt really matter which medium its done over does it?

      If they want to talk to someone with a different culture than them, how does one do that on TV? The TV is a one-way medium, the internet is a TOOL of communication. If you choose to bring up your children so they are looking for crap on youtube, than that really is a choice in how to use the tool. Apparently a choice they learned from the adults around them in their everyday life.

      Granted, most kids watch crap because thats all their parents expose them to. Its why commercial pay TV was so successful in the first place, so Im not really concerned that you dont understand the point of the discussion. It seems that you were only exposed to crap, and think thats all there is to offer to your kids. And thats fine, Somebody has to clean the toilets.

    4. Re:Just Wait Till You Have Kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about kids? I'm in the same boat as the GP, but it isn't me or the kid glued to E! 24/7.

    5. Re:Just Wait Till You Have Kids! by randyest · · Score: 1

      Meh. You got into that vapid bimbo^W^W boat of your own volition. No pity here.

      --
      everything in moderation
    6. Re:Just Wait Till You Have Kids! by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

      That is very defeatist. My mom (a teacher) would spend many afternoons playing with us and giving us tasks which, at the time, we didn't realize were giving us skills that would come useful once we started school proper.

      And our dad would take us to play football (soccer) to the park on weekends.

      TV? Yeah, much later in life, but it was never a nany replacement at home. If there is the will it should not be the case.

      --
      IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    7. Re:Just Wait Till You Have Kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  36. !notnewsfornerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EOM

  37. Eureka! The ultimate nerd show. by HTRednek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now maybe they'll get started on Season 3, of course I still think they should bring Firefly back.... even though it won't be the same without Wash and Shepard...

  38. People will be back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like when baseball went on strike and everyone was claiming America's past time was dead.

  39. Barn Dance by sciop101 · · Score: 1
    Now the writers will spend the next two years practicing for their trade. The last strike got us "Cops", "Survivor", and "Cheaters"!

    I predict "The O.C. Hillbillies", "Gomer Pyle, SEAL", and "CIA:BO: Culinary Institution Arts: Bake-Off".

    "Original" products will be out in 2011.

    --
    The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
  40. If only.... by owlnation · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...anyone involved in Reality TV would go on strike. Permanently, and forever. It's hard to imagine anything more anti-geek than Reality TV.

    Welcome back writers. Congrats on your win. We need you, more than ever.

    1. Re:If only.... by Ma8thew · · Score: 2, Informative

      Reality TV writers are given job titles by the networks which prevent them joining the WGA, like 'segment producer' or consultant. They are basically treated like dirt by them, despite writing being a large component of 'reality' TV, they aren't paid overtime, they don't have insurance and they have no leverage.

    2. Re:If only.... by amokk · · Score: 1

      Reality TV isn't intrinsically "anti-geek." It's worth remembering that shows like Mythbusters, which seem to be lauded by geeks, are classified as reality TV. There is a lot of good reality tv out there, especially on channels like the food network, etc. Not all of it is "watch paris hilton walk around barely clothed."

      --
      I think, therefore I am an Atheist.
    3. Re:If only.... by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but in all fairness... as contributors to the production of reality TV, they *are* dirt.

      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    4. Re:If only.... by syousef · · Score: 1

      Myth Buster is garbage. It's not as bad as biggest loser aka "I'll trade my self esteem for your weight loss bunk then lose weight unhealthily" but its dangerous. Why? Because they piss on the scientific method and unfortunately people see them and think they're scientists. Many of those watching the show get some twisted reality tv based version of what science is like. In reality they're 2 special effects guys blowing shit up and doing other "cool things" based on some scientific premise. They're only slightly less scientific than UK's Brainiac.

      If you examine Reality TV it's trash because

      1) It's not based on reality at all. The situations are articifical. Yet it promises to be about the real world and realism. Stupid naive people get a very skewed view of what reality should be like and try to apply it to their own lives with disasterous results.

      2) It's focused on bringing out people's worst - backstabbing (survivor), fad dieting (biggest loser), bitchy dance and song competitions (so you think you can dance, idol). They always try to put positive spin on things as if they're helping people find their true selves, or lose weight or make it big - in reality all it does is use schmucks up and spit them out.

      3) It displaces better quality stuff. e.g. People who can ACTUALLY sing and dance and have already proven it.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    5. Re:If only.... by FrankDrebin · · Score: 1

      If only....anyone involved in Reality TV would go on strike.

      Hmmm, sounds like a great idea for a reality show.

      --
      Anybody want a peanut?
  41. Was happy for the strike by pembo13 · · Score: 1

    I really didn't miss it, only two or three shows that I used to regularly watch were affected, and really it was just fictional television. There wasn't much besides news, educational tv, and daily show / colbert report before the strike. And during the strike there was just about the same. I was looking forward to see the industry die and possibly something new and good take its place. The rest of the television watching population is mostly into their reality tv anyways, so I'm guessing they adapted as well.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  42. I don't care that you don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why is this thread full of "I don't care" posts? Can't you ignore the thread? Or is it because TV has shortened my attention span that I can ignore things I don't care about?

    1. Re:I don't care that you don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why is this thread full of "I don't care" posts? Can't you ignore the thread?
      No, because they're lying about how much they don't care.
  43. Noooooo by kahrytan · · Score: 1

    I wanted more unscripted reality television... Damn it. Go back on strike writers.

    --
    \
  44. dugg vs slashed by gosand · · Score: 1
    Articles 3 days after Digg had them?


    In the grand scheme of things, getting an article that is 185 days old vs 182 days old isn't that big of a deal to me.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  45. Remember Star Trek:TNG.... by Itninja · · Score: 1

    ...the season finale of season 2? There was a writers strike ending then too. And because they were rushed to get a final episode written out on the air, they pushed out "Shades of Grey". It was a clip-show hackjob, and generally considered one of the worst TNG episodes ever made.

    Don't expect your favorite shows to suddenly suck less, at least not right away. There is always a J-curve with these sort of things.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    1. Re:Remember Star Trek:TNG.... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Don't expect your favorite shows to suddenly suck less, at least not right away


      My shows sucked BEFORE the strike. I don't see that changing.
      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  46. The Fallout by Evets · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One thing I don't see mentioned in the comments is the fact that during the strike many writers were fired, and many shows were cancelled. 24 has decided not to air this season and will continue next season.

    It may be a win for some people, but for others they are now out of a job. I don't have a pony in this race, but the strength of the writer's guild is in serious question. One Presidential candidate after another crossed the picket line in favor of publicity. They did not protect the jobs of those who they sought to protect. Actor/Writers crossed the picket line for fear of losing their jobs. And most importantly - many high value shows seemed to be airing new episodes in the middle of the strike.

    I'm all for TV coming back, but make no mistake - this strike did not end well for the union. It seems that every labor union in the last several years that has gone on strike (save the port workers who affect the global economy when on strike) has yielded either poor results (eventual acceptance of offers barely different than what was available pre-strike) and in a loss of jobs for unionized workers.

    I hate to turn this into a political thing, but the strength of unionized labor vs. corporate dollars has shifted dramatically in favor of corporate dollars.

    1. Re:The Fallout by thorkyl · · Score: 1

      Interesting,
          I thought it was illegal to fire someone on strike.

      But this is Hollyweird we are talking about

      --
      -- I am the NRA, enough said...
    2. Re:The Fallout by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      If the show you're working for goes on long-term or permanent hiatus, then you're out of a job. It's no different than any other striker. Even if the union wins, if some of the union shops shut down, those employees will be out of luck, no matter how successfully negotiations went.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:The Fallout by andphi · · Score: 1

      On that note, what are your predictions related to the possible DGA SAG strikes? They could shut the industry down just as completely as the WGA strike.

    4. Re:The Fallout by abies · · Score: 1

      You got me scared. I glimpsed the title and thought that Fallout 3 will be delayed because of the strike.

    5. Re:The Fallout by AKAJack · · Score: 1

      The weren't "fired" technically. The work went away so they were laid off. If the work comes back they will be rehired, but in some cases the work will not come back.

    6. Re:The Fallout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're rather uninformed on the issue here. I'm a striking writer, heading back to work in the next few weeks, so here's what actually went down:
      1. As part of the deal, the AMPTP agreed to rehire all fired writers; to return writers to work immediately; and if they were on a show when the strike hit to allow them to complete the contract or pay them for it. Granted, people who weren't writers definitely got hurt, which was painful for us, and we hope that they're able to return to work and make up the difference. But writers aren't being penalized.
      2. The only prez candidate who crossed the line was Huckabee--who did so repeatedly, mind you. None of the others crossed the line on shows that were struck.
      3. The only writers who crossed the line/scabbed were daytime soap opera writers, and that I know of, one screenwriter (John Ridley) who declared financial core status and wrote about it for the LA Times. As part of the agreement with the AMPTP, all writers who were scabbed now get their jobs back. And the WGA's membership rules state that if you ever scabbed, you're banned for life. So the soap writer scabs will not only be fired this week, but banned from writing for WGA governed TV and films for life....
      4. And as for what we got....the argument is way too long to put in here, but I give it a huge thumbs up. It's not perfect-no contract ever is-but we got a lot of huge concessions and the tools to keep relevant in a quickly changing marketplace. Look for a ratification vote in a couple weeks with probably low-90s yes vote. That says a lot. This was a major step for Labor, and I think a just one at that.

    7. Re:The Fallout by Evets · · Score: 1

      Actually (and this comes from the wife of an emmy winning writer), you are wrong. Several writers were fired from shows actively in development (including her husband, who was fired early on in the strike).

    8. Re:The Fallout by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

      The DGA already has a contract. They signed their contract about halfway through the writer's strike (sometime last month). It was sort of the reason that the writers and the AMPTP moved back into unofficial talks.

      Source, Official Source

    9. Re:The Fallout by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      And most importantly - many high value shows seemed to be airing new episodes in the middle of the strike.

      Uh, because the strike only affected writing of new episodes, not the filming or airing of new episodes. Whatever scripts the networks had when the strike started, they could film, and any shows they had filmed, they could wait to air any time they wanted. I'm certain that in many cases this was strategic -- filming shows earlier, and then waiting until the middle of the strike when the hope was that other networks would be showing re-runs.

      I think overall this strike was extremely effective. The only way in way I can see in which SWG was shown to be weakened by this strike was that the networks realized that in a pinch they could fill their time slots with writer-less reality TV schlock.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:The Fallout by AKAJack · · Score: 1

      I suppose it's possible, but in the "heat" of the strike I also know that writers were telling people they were "fired" when they were actually laid off. I work in one of the Universal buildings and spoke to many picketing writers out on Lankershim blvd. The two who told me they were "fired" admitted they were actually laid off. One other guy I spoke to (who didn't claim to be fired) had a separate contract (but was not an employee) and refused to cross the picket line so I guess he was "fired" for not fullfilling his contractural obligations.

      Shows in "active development" are production deals (until they actually develop something) working under union and that production companies rules. If the production company employing those writers wanted to fire them I suspect it was an internal decision.

      The entire reason the studios goaded the WGA into striking was so they could kill all the "active development deals" that weren't producing crap. 90 to force majure them out and a settlement at 100 days. What a coincidence. Cleaning house was never easier.

  47. For true satisfaction, reality is better. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can understand why people want to see fiction they like. Everyone knows it's fiction, and sometimes fiction can explore issues in a way that would be difficult for a documentary.

    However, I got tired of seeing fiction that tried to make me believe things that could not be true due to the laws of physics, or due to other aspects of reality. So, now I only watch or read non-fiction. Defending myself from the deceptions and errors of fiction takes brain processing time, and I'd rather use my brainpower to work on something else besides the ideas of a writer who had little interest in reality when he was in school.

    It bothers me that comedians can't operate without writers, that they present their jokes as their own, but the jokes are actually written by someone else.

    Far worse, however, is the media writing that George W. Bush said something when he was obviously only reading something someone else wrote. In class you get disciplined if you present someone else's work as your own. If you are president of the United States, that is considered acceptable.

    1. Re:For true satisfaction, reality is better. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      However, I got tired of seeing fiction that tried to make me believe things that could not be true due to the laws of physics, or due to other aspects of reality To each his own. I enjoy this kind of fiction for precisely the reason that it is impossible in this universe. If I want to see things that are possible, there's reality right outside my window[1]. Fiction set in a universe with the same constraints at this one seems quite dull - it's like my life but other people are living it. That said, I do enjoy historical fiction. Although the laws of physics are the same, the rules of social interaction are often very different.


      [1] Not inside, however, where reality has been suspended for bad behaviour.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:For true satisfaction, reality is better. by rhyder128k · · Score: 1

      "However, I got tired of seeing fiction that tried to make me believe things that could not be true due to the laws of physics, or due to other aspects of reality."

      What they should have done is hacked into a remote camera to get a picture of the scripts that the writers were working on. All they would need is a blurry image of a printed script that was laying around the writer's apartment. Then they could have "enhanced the image" so that the text could be read like they do all time on X Files and 24.

      --
      Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
    3. Re:For true satisfaction, reality is better. by edwdig · · Score: 1

      Far worse, however, is the media writing that George W. Bush said something when he was obviously only reading something someone else wrote.

      The guy stumbles through his speeches bad enough with other people writing them for him. Do you really want to hear him read a speech that starts out on the paper that way?

    4. Re:For true satisfaction, reality is better. by twistedsymphony · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However, I got tired of seeing fiction that tried to make me believe things that could not be true due to the laws of physics, or due to other aspects of reality. So, now I only watch or read non-fiction. Defending myself from the deceptions and errors of fiction takes brain processing time, and I'd rather use my brainpower to work on something else besides the ideas of a writer who had little interest in reality when he was in school.
      There's quite a lot of space between Documentary and fiction that breaks the laws of physics.

      CSI and a lot of other tech/police shows do break a lot of rules to make it "work", I usually try to avoid shows like that because it frustrates the hell out of me. However there are many shows that are fictional and still follow the rules. Monk for instance doesn't use any fake tech but rather interesting fictional situations. Then there are shows like Star Trek that use fictional technology but clearly define the laws and limitations of their world.

      Unless I'm watching something like the History Channel/Mythbusters/Dirty Jobs/How it's Made/etc I find most "reality" based programing to be far more of an insult to my intelligence than anything CSI and the like could throw at me...
    5. Re:For true satisfaction, reality is better. by hansonc · · Score: 1

      Personally I've always felt that GWB is a better speaker when he's not reading a prepared speech. I'm actually surprised that they keep writing speeches for him, if I were his communications director I would have moved him from prepared speeches to just giving him talking points.

    6. Re:For true satisfaction, reality is better. by Spleen · · Score: 1

      The point of the writers strike was to deprive us of entertainment to the point that the networks would be forced to give in to the demands of the writers. Unfortunately, GWB's writers aren't members of the screenwriters guild. It might have been more entertaining if he didn't have a speechwriter.

    7. Re:For true satisfaction, reality is better. by AJWM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then there are shows like Star Trek that use fictional technology but clearly define the laws and limitations of their world.

      Riiight. At least until the plot requires otherwise.

      --
      -- Alastair
    8. Re:For true satisfaction, reality is better. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Well.. for what it is worth.. Jay Leno was forbidden from writing his own jokes. I'm not sure how that one turned out but apparently he writes some stuff.

      I think they start off with some material, but our need for material is higher than one person's ability to produce it.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    9. Re:For true satisfaction, reality is better. by patiodragon · · Score: 1

      *blink*.

      *blink*-*blink*.

      There was a strike!?

    10. Re:For true satisfaction, reality is better. by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      Far worse, however, is the media writing that George W. Bush said something when he was obviously only reading something someone else wrote. In class you get disciplined if you present someone else's work as your own. If you are president of the United States, that is considered acceptable.

      I've only seen references used for research because most people don't care.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    11. Re:For true satisfaction, reality is better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm a former political speechwriter, and the idea of just using talking points on the grounds that the politician will then speak better -- or from the heart -- often comes up.

      The problem with talking points is this. The politician could well deliver a really great speech. But if the politician is feeling tired, or off color, or just doesn't care about the subject it's easy for the speech to become a complete disaster.

      At least a written speech puts a floor under the quality. A speech delivered from a written document or an autocue is unlikely to be truly, truly awful, even if it's not going to be truly, truly great.

      And believe me, President Bush's speeches are not the worst I've seen. I've seen politicians forget the main point they're supposed to deliver; I've seen them go blank and stand, blinking, at the lectern; I've seen them throw their talking points away -- usually with a flourish -- and then deliver a disastrous speech from the heart about something the audience doesn't care about.

      A written speech minimises the chance of that happening.

      And that's why speechwriters prepare complete speeches.

      Posting as AC for obvious reasons

    12. Re:For true satisfaction, reality is better. by Khaed · · Score: 1

      Especially TNG.

      I liked TNG and all, but a lot of episodes felt like:

      Beginning: X is impossible.
      Filler
      End: The crew does X anyway.

    13. Re:For true satisfaction, reality is better. by ontheroll · · Score: 1

      Funny. I would bet you that not one but many said the exact same thing about the crazy unrealistic ideas of some guy called Jules Verne.

      The church burned at the stake those who claimed that the world isnt, in fact, revolving around the sun.

      Keeping yourself to "whats real" is a different way of saying that you are not willing to deal with the possiblities of what you know.

    14. Re:For true satisfaction, reality is better. by sckeener · · Score: 1

      However, I got tired of seeing fiction that tried to make me believe things that could not be true due to the laws of physics, or due to other aspects of reality.

      and how do you know that? Oh somethings are obvious, but I take pleasure in imagining how something could work....give your brain a work out and don't be negative...think of how it could work...not how it doesn't!

      Those are the people that make it practical...such as waterbeds...Heinlein conceived the idea in fiction...and it became fact.

      Plenty of other examples...

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    15. Re:For true satisfaction, reality is better. by kalirion · · Score: 1

      However, I got tired of seeing fiction that tried to make me believe things that could not be true due to the laws of physics, or due to other aspects of reality.

      To your current understanding of the laws of physics and reality you mean.

  48. Re:Writers are too greedy. FAIL! by Microlith · · Score: 1

    Gee, because that's how they choose to be compensated? Or are you just bashing them out of sheer ignorance?

    I would imagine that by negotiating for a percentage of the profits they ARE taking a risk on whether the show flops or not. This is likely the reason they were pissed at the studios, who wanted to cut them out of the loop entirely when a show went to TV or was somehow charged for on the Internet. Why bother pinning your reputation on the success of a show if you're going to get screwed either way (either by a bomb, or by the studio?)

    Looks like the "big fat FAIL" is deserved more by you.

  49. I hope not. by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

    Once you have your first child, suddenly, UNCLE TELEVISION will become your best friend.

    Actually, we could all do with a lot less of UNCLE TELEVISION, especially kids.

    It's too often today that people use the television (and video games and the computer) as a surrogate babysitter instead of actually taking the time to do stuff with them. There is no reason anyone's child needs dozens or hundreds of channels of entertainment. All it does is contribute to our short attention span 24-hour entertainment culture.

    I took the plunge and canceled my satellite service a little over a year ago. Since then, I have kept up with exactly two shows: Mythbusters and Lost. I have so much more time now to do things that are infinitely more interesting, and I'd never go back to watching television from the time I got home until the time I go to bed. The sad thing is that until I got rid of the satellite service, I thought I would just die without it, precisely because I was raised with the television on almost every waking hour I was at home.

    I know a few people like me who don't have cable or satellite service, and their kids are consistently smarter than their average couch potato peers. They don't call it the "idiot box" for nothing.

    I don't think that television is inherently evil. But I do think that people who plop their kids down in front of it and give them instant access to everything they want for hours at a time are doing them a grave disservice.

  50. Re:Writers are too greedy. FAIL! by andphi · · Score: 1

    Actually, they are taking a risk. Writers make their investment in time and opportunity costs up front. If the show flops (read: never airs in its entirety), they will never collect any residual income on those unaired episodes. No reruns, no royalties. No DVD release, no royalties. They're still out the time and effort required to write the original scripts, even if they were paid, because they could have spent the same time writing another series with more chance of success.

  51. Ah bummer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now it means I'll see fewer re-runs of shows that actually used to be GOOD! Oh well, at least there's always the news.

  52. Wee hoo, writers guild just cost everyone more by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Money.

    You do by products that are advertised right? this will cause those prices to rise.

    Think about that next time someone says "How much an actor makes doesn't effect you."

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  53. Most shows won't be back till mid-March by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    According to Variety and other sources, most popular TV shows that are returning won't broadcast until March 13th or thereabouts.

    Which gives us another month to ignore the Tube and level up for WoW's latest expansion set!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  54. TV Guide's list of TV shows status... by antdude · · Score: 1

    "Dark Horizons shares a TV Guide blog that shows a chart/schedule since the end to the three-month-old Writers Guild of America (WGA) strike is imminent. The networks have quietly begun outlining plans to salvage what's left of the current television (TV) season. Keep in mind that the following information remains extremely tentative and is subject to change (and probably will). Check the Web page often to see the up-to-date information." From my site.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  55. writers are posting to slashdot again? by Zarf · · Score: 1

    Does this mean the writers are all posting on Slashdot again?

    --
    [signature]
  56. Re:YOU FUCKING DOUCHE, TACO!!! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    AND GOD FORBID YOU REPLY TO A POST, 'CUZ YOU'LL HAVE TO START FROM SQUARE ONE AND LOAD THE WHOLE DISCUSSION AGAIN SO YOU CAN PICK UP WHERE YOU LEFT OFF! Is there some reason other than stupidity why you don't open the reply page in a new tab?

    OMG, DID I JUST DEFEAT YOUR WHINEY "YOU TYPED IN ALL CAPS, IT'S LIKE YELLING" FILTER? Apparently. More entertainingly my post, which contains fewer caps than yours, has been rejected. You'd have thought not having the stupid filters would be one of the perks of excellent karma. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to ramble on for a bit more in lower case.
    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  57. Reality TV is a geek staple by roystgnr · · Score: 1

    It's hard to imagine anything more anti-geek than Reality TV.

    Geeks may not like watching reality TV, but for decades we've appreciated stories *about* reality TV. Isn't reality TV a staple of that futuristic dystopia that arouses a weird combination of gut-dropping dread and insatiable curiosity in the geek heart? We can't let it stop now! Between America's abandonment of the idea of "prisoner rights" and our proliferation of "reality" shows, we're *this* close to getting a live-action Running Man!

  58. Um... by Manfesto · · Score: 1

    "Jurisdiction in reality and animation

    The WGA's membership of approximately 12,000 writers (more than 7,000 in WGAW and more than 4,000 in WGAE) primarily work on live-action, script-driven movies and television programs.[31]

    Exactly if and how the WGA's Minimum Basic Agreement (MBA) should apply to other TV and film categories such as reality television and animation has been inconsistent over the years and is an area of much dispute.

    The WGA had been pushing for jurisdiction of reality and animation, but have recently dropped these issues as the WGA and AMPTP have entered into informal negotiations."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_Writers_Guild_of_America_strike#Jurisdiction_in_reality_and_animation

  59. Death Note? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Just an interesting story, from beginning to end. When was the last time you had a guarantee like that from a network show?

    Death Note?

    Oh. You mean a US network show. I don't watch programs in English any more.

  60. Grim history of labor conditions for writers by beagle72 · · Score: 1

    What do writers want? Justic! When do they want it? Nowe! Most people would be surprised at the conditions many writers are forced to labor under. And it isn't a new problem. During the "Golden Age" of TV, many writers came home at night with a hacking cough and blackened hands. On the upside, their forearms were massive.

  61. Watching other stuff by architimmy · · Score: 1

    I'm lucky I guess. I grew up overseas and didn't really have a chance to watch most of the sci-fi that was on in the 90s. So right now I'm catching up on Star Trek DS-9 (season 5 at the moment). Next I plan on watching Babylon 5. All this for the first time. A few years ago I spent about two years watching all the seasons of Stargate that I missed. Netflix is really all I need at this point. I would highly recommend it to most people by the way. If possible you should go to your nearest "Time-o-mat" and jump back to the early nineties. Give your previous self a PSP or something to distract yourself from watching all those good shows. Easy as pie, now you have loads of good content to entertain yourself with.

    Sadly, I fear currently this strategy will not serve you well in 10 year's time as today's content mill is a bit worn down. It appears that all the old content templates have been overused and now all seem to simply resemble each other. The side-effect being a large number of shows which are mostly indistinguishable (CSI, CSI Miami, CSI New York, CSI Cabo-Spring Break, etc...). I would recommend to your future self some good gems in the mix however, largely in the comedy genre.

  62. Let the puns begin by thorkyl · · Score: 1

    Oh wait, that costs extra...

    --
    -- I am the NRA, enough said...
  63. DIY by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    We've become quite dependent on others for our entertainment/creative fix. But culture, stories, entertainment, and art are things you and I can create without needing permission from anyone else, or big financial backing. The portrait you paint or the sculpture you sculpt might not be displayed in the Museum of Modern Art, but who cares? The rush of creating it with your own hands is better than paying $20 to view the crap MoMA considers art, or $70/mo. for cable to see the tripe the 'experts' consider entertainment.

    During the Writer's Strike, after depleting Netflix and playing every game I had into the ground, I took up writing. Nothing much, just vignettes. Maybe some of them will grow into stories. If not, no biggie.

    But the act of writing them is a lot more fun than watching formulaic sitcoms interlaced with scores of commercials and impregnated with endless product placements.

    I hope many others got the chance to discover their muse during this hiatus, and that they keep running with it. The country would be a more excellent and interesting place to live for it.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:DIY by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I tried writing years ago, and quit when I realized how badly I suck. However, I might give it another shot, considering that some of the professionals seem to suck too.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  64. Reality TV can't go on strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reality shows are almost entirely non-union

  65. and executives are like pro atheletes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, sure, go ahead and blame GM's financial troubles on paying $30/hour salaries to their workers rather than the gigantic compensation they pay their executives.

    When GM Vice Chairman Lutz said that "executive salaries are like professional athelete salaries" http://www.businessweek.com/autos/autobeat/archives/2006/01/gm_execs_no_pay.html/ he thought that was a good thing!

  66. prison break by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    How Long before the rest of Season 3 can be made?

    There is only 1 left with more planed after that.

    Also I want to see the upcome spin off set in a womans prison.

  67. Good or bad deal? by bagofcrap · · Score: 1

    "c) and will get paid for the reuse of content on new media when the studios get paid."

    Hollywood is notorious for it's bad dealings, with movies that lose money through questionable accounting practices, even after being top grossing movies for many weeks. This is more for TV than movies, but I gotta wonder what steps the contract takes to prevent the writers from getting screwed in a similar manner.

  68. 17 Day Royalty Free Window? - That's Gotta Hurt by dynamator · · Score: 1

    From unitedhollywood.blogspot.com: "There were also concerns raised about the 17 and 24 day windows of free content reuse on the internet"
    ----- 17 days is a long time in Net Years.
    The argument has been made that the big bucks are in the return over the long haul. I find more than ever that much of the content being made today is topical, feeding-frenzy driven, and may not be of much interest to the masses after a week. It will be interesting to see how many TV episodes are up for *exactly* 17 days.

  69. They were on strike? by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

    Dang I hadn't noticed any degradation in quality in fact I think things got better :-) ! I mean how ahrd can it be to write for 'Dirty Jobs'?

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
  70. Great!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if only we could get the American Idol contestants to go on strike, TV may become watchable again.

  71. Yay Fox's Animation Domination! and SP!! by theneb · · Score: 0

    Great cant wait for fox's animation domination sundays, simpsons, american dad, family guy and all the good lowly, trashy comedy! And lets not forget good old southpark, really bring the a*8hole out of you, nice :)

  72. Watching, and paying for, more TV than ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just to counter the usual gaggle of smug tv-bashing posts, I will say that not only am I watching more television than ever, I'm paying for more as well. The last ten years has been a golden era of quality American television, from The Sopranos to Dexter to South Park to Rome to Lost to Veronica Mars. The Wire, in particular, is one of my favourite pieces of art ever, and should receive a Pulitzer Prize after this season. I don't think there's been an era of popular culture where there has been so much quality work available for so cheap.

    Also, as a sports fan, watching big games in HD on a big screen is an unreal experience, and now almost all of the big events all televised this way.

    For $30 a month, I think this is a great deal, and I've also been going out of my way to buy DVD sets for the shows I want to support. I could spend my life hunting down torrents of various shows, but it seems like a huge waste of time to save a few dollars.

  73. Oh, Oh, quick show of hands! by bondjamesbond · · Score: 0

    Ok, who gives a fuck? Anyone? Ok, one hand in the back there. Thank you, sir - you may sit down.

  74. Woohoo! by ZonkerWilliam · · Score: 1

    Finally! I can stop working out and having meaningful family time and get back the couch and oh so mind numbingly mediocre sitcoms! Aaaah, feel the sedentary life flowing back to me now!

  75. I'm not pro-union by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    I'm not pro-union. Nor am I anti-union. I like seeing an even playing field. With that said about my prejudices, I think anyone could see that their demands were perfectly reasonable.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  76. The Office Episodes by ModemRat · · Score: 0

    New episodes will air April 10th, and the season will end March 27th. Better than nothing.
    http://www.officetally.com/new-information-about-season-4

  77. it's "by design" by AKAJack · · Score: 1

    The problem stems (drumroll please) from copywrite law. To make it quick and simple the "creator" owns the copywrite on his work. He could license it to the studios, but the deal is that he allows the studio to copywrite it in their name. He is not an employee creating a "work for hire". That way the studios don't have to go back to the creator every time they want to do a script change, create a spin-off, etc. In return the creator gets royalties (called residuals in the trade) for the use of their work.

  78. the dirty truth by AKAJack · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Your first paragraph pretty much sums up what this was all about. The writers guild was coerced into striking by the studios. They didn't want to and worked without contract for months, but the studios refused to negotiate. So they felt a need to flex their muscles and went out on strike.

    The studios felt they were saddled with dead weight in the form of long-term development deals that were going no where. Sure you get a good show or two out of them, but there were too many for the product that was being produced. There were some that were three years into their deals and had no product yet. All of those deals have "act of god" or "force majeur" clauses in them and most were 90-days (from what i was told by the Universal Studios folks).

    After 90-days those deals were killed, the people had all been laid off earlier and now, amazingly, 10-days later the strike is settled. The WGA was a puppet used to smack down the small production companies.

    The tiny concessions given to the writers have been estimated to amount to about $3,000 per year for a constantly working writer of average pay. And even in those concessions there are loopholes for the studios - like they get to wait a month after releasing a show for the web before they have to pay anything to the writer. Look for lots of "pay for it on iTunes or get it free after a month" deals from now on. So basically the writers sold out tens of thousands of actual hard-working people (grips, food workers, etc.) for hollow concession to feed their damaged egos.

  79. and ... by queldor · · Score: 1

    now back to your regularly scheduled program!!

  80. So, in 3-4 weeks by recharged95 · · Score: 1
    I'll have to turn off my TV.

    Really, we'll be back to the stupid usual reality shows gimicks, politically correct talk shows, over-paid writer sequels, and recreation of a classic JJAbroms style movies.

    I admit, the last 2 months, I've likely seen the best live-recorded shows ever--I mean Leno, O'Brien, A Daily Show, and Bill Maher have been the most entertaining in ages. They took risks and it was good. Now with their writers back, it's likely back to go ho-hum, just enough for ratings.

  81. Re:Writers are too greedy. FAIL! by Copid · · Score: 1

    Why should the writers get any of the profits? They get paid for a job...done.
    That would be fine if that's how their compensation was structured. That's how most of us work, but it's not how the agreement is set up between writers and studios. I'd be a pretty greedy bastard if I decided after the fact that my paycheck wasn't enough and that I wanted a cut of every gizmo that my company sold, but that's because how our arrangement is supposed to work. If the agreement was "We'll pay you a little bit up front and then give you a percentage of every gizmo we sell" and then found a loophole where they could make money bartering gizmos and tried to cut me out of my pay because it wasn't technically "selling" them, you can bet that I'd be fighting pretty damned hard for a contract that clarified the issue.
    --
    An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  82. Finally by Teflon_Jeff · · Score: 1

    I won't have to not watch Bruno Vs. Carrie-Ann.

    I can not watch quality shows.

    --
    "Teach a man to build a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
  83. Just in time ! by justleavealonemmmkay · · Score: 0

    Now GWB's writers can focus on writing McCain's lines.

  84. Four weeks vs. Seven? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
    It will take at least four weeks for producers to get the first post-strike episodes of comedies back on the air; dramas will take six to eight weeks

    I thought Comedy was harder than Drama. Oh wait, I'm being told that only applies to good Comedy.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  85. They were gone? by nurb432 · · Score: 0, Troll

    I didn't notice a change in tv ... didn't even know they were gone.

    tell me again why i care?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:They were gone? by GrayCalx · · Score: 1

      tell me again why i care?

      You're asking people on the internet to tell you why you should have feelings on things? You need to go out there and create your own opinions champ.

    2. Re:They were gone? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      It was more of a joke, as i *HATE* TV anyway. its the real reason i never noticed. What i watch, the writer strike had ZERO influence over.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:They were gone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  86. Sadly by matt+me · · Score: 1

    Slashdot has no improvement in editing to look forward to.

  87. Learn to apostrophe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Typo's and grammatical errors in the summaries? ASCII porn?

    Who is Typo? One of the editors?

  88. Re:Writers are too greedy. FAIL! by kbielefe · · Score: 1

    Who would you pay more, the writer for an emmy-winning show, or the writer for a complete flop? If the answer isn't obvious, you might want to ask your local Politburo for help. How do you know which writers are working on new emmy-winning shows and which are working on complete flops? If you can tell in advance, why would you pay anyone to work on a flop? If you can't tell in advance, how do you know how much to pay them? One hit show is no guarantee of another. One of my favorite writers, David Shore, won an emmy for "House," but completely flopped on his next project. You would have seriously overpaid him for the flop and seriously underpaid him for "House."

    I have an idea, we can wait to see how successful the show is, then pay the writers more for more successful shows. But how can we measure how successful a show is? I know, by the profits. We can pay writers more for shows that make more profit. I bet that would encourage them to write better. If only there were some mathematical formula we could use to codify that in a contract...

    Slashdotters who judge writers but don't care enough about writing to learn "there" homophones get a big fat FAIL!

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
  89. Jay Leno could not say what he liked? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Wow, you are right: ABC News: No Joke, Leno Can't Write Own Punchlines [Story HTML Title]

    How can they keep a career comedian from joking?

    Suppose he said something and people laughed. Could he claim that he didn't mean it as a joke?

    Also, it should be said that, with few exceptions, Jay Leno has not been funny for at least a decade. I'm not the only one who thinks that: "Leno's long-standing dominance of the ratings must rank as one of the world's inexplicable cultural tragedies."

    Maybe people want to see comedy on TV so badly that they are willing to pretend what the comedians say is funny.

    1. Re:Jay Leno could not say what he liked? by tylernt · · Score: 1

      Also, it should be said that, with few exceptions, Jay Leno has not been funny for at least a decade. I'm not the only one who thinks that: "Leno's long-standing dominance of the ratings must rank as one of the world's inexplicable cultural tragedies."
      It's because Leno is far better than Letterman and his music guy Paul. It's hard to watch Letterman without feeling sorry for those two guys when they embarrass themselves so often... it's just sad. Kimmel might be worth watching if he dropped his lame "Uncle" and stupid Guillermo bits, so until that happens we're left with Leno as the lesser of three evils.

      I'll be glad when Conan replaces Leno in a few years, late night might actually be worth watching again.
      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
  90. What the hell are you all talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time there's a story about the writer's strike on Slashdot, all I see are comments along the lines of, "who cares?", "doesn't matter", "good!"

    Come on! Are you all really that deluded? Yes, the internet has reduced the need for traditional TV, but we're a long way from leaving it behind. Billions of people watch TV every day. Most of you watch it at least a few times per week. Even if you download shows rather than viewing them on your TV, you're still going to be affected by the writer's strike, and you're still going to miss out on future episodes of your favourite series.

    I just think it's childish that so many of you are pretending that you're above television. Like you've evolved, and you can't wait to see it gone. Don't forget that a lack of writers affects more than just the dime-a-dozen US sitcoms. Almost every show has been affected in some way by this strike.

    I, for one, am not too afraid (like the rest of you) to say that I'm glad they've reached an agreement.

  91. Yay - No more Jewish Guilt! by pugugly · · Score: 1

    I can watch A . . ., er I mean The Daily show again without feeling guilty!

    --
    An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
  92. Yay, I get my circuses back! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, where's my bread?

  93. It's called financial planning by myawn · · Score: 1
    >> If the formula you're using is sound, but the values you're plugging into the variables are random numbers you've pulled out of your ass, what's the point?

    Sounds like financial planning to me :-)

    Random numbers == how long you expect to live, what the tax rates will be 20+ years from now, what inflation is going to be for the next N years, what your expected rate of return will be, etc.

    But the formulas are accurate!

    --
    Subscribers can see articles in the future? So what? Everyone gets to see them in the future.
  94. Yes, the first half of season 2 sucked. by 5of0 · · Score: 1

    ...and Tim Kring (that's the creator of the show) admitted it and pledged to fix it. Which he did, if you watched the end of the second season.
    Of course, the dialog is still ridiculous, but it always has been...it wouldn't quite be Heroes without an occasional West-ism.

    Captcha: Testicles
    Hmm...it sucked what again?

    --
    You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
  95. Doctor Who by imtheguru · · Score: 1

    Series 30 begins in Spring.

    Cheers.

    --
    Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
    A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
  96. Not a conspiracy by joebob2000 · · Score: 1

    This is a broad subject. In general, I find it interesting that the auto manufacturers with the best MPG ratings are those in countries with no petroleum industry, and/or weak industry lobbyists.

    Is it really that interesting?

    It seems obvious that countries with no petroleum industry will have a weak petroleum lobby. Furthermore, people in countries with no petroleum industry pay more for petroleum and will favor manufacturers with better MPG ratings.

    Recently, Americans have had a combination of cheap gas and extra spending money for cars, so they were focused on everything but MPG. Things are swinging the other way now, so you will see MPG go up.

    1. Re:Not a conspiracy by Brad+Eleven · · Score: 1

      Recently, Americans have had a combination of cheap gas and extra spending money for cars, so they were focused on everything but MPG. Things are swinging the other way now, so you will see MPG go up.


      Right. I think our only disagreement is in the meanings of "recently" and "now". I remember gasoline prices going up in the late Seventies--and that's when low-mileage cars first became popular. I'll grant that the recent spike in gasoline prices seems to have gotten the manufacturer's attention, but they seem more sluggish than a walrus with a hangover.

      In my view, the American automakers' response to gas prices has been ridiculously slow and nearly immeasurable. Just last month, they told the Congress that they couldn't possibly increase gas mileage without losing money--and the Congress seems to have bought the paradoxical argument. Great, let's just let them keep making crappy cars that don't last and that burn too much gas, all in the name of short-sightedness and tunnel vision.

      See also the EPA smackdown in California, and the record profits turned in by Exxon-Mobil and Chevron-Texaco-Unocal.

      I'm just saying that the fix is in, and that it's far less a case of supply and demand than it is a corporate-controlled government. On a global scale, of course, economics will shake things out to level, i.e., American cars will continue to become like those manufactured in the now-defunct Soviet Union. Perhaps we'll even have our own version of the Yugo in a few decades.
      --
      "Press to test."
      (click)
      "Release to detonate."
  97. I preferred "The Number 23" by jd_esguerra · · Score: 1

    Sigh.... Just kidding.

  98. Stephen Colbert Did It by frank249 · · Score: 1

    50 years from now we will find out that Stephen Colbert negotiated an end to the strike but did not want to take any credit for it just like his dad did.

    --

    Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.

  99. If I could find you right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would rip your little piece-of-shit moronic "no fucking clue" body to pieces.
    Unions are the only thing we non-rich have. Get a fucking clue.
    Instead of making life shittier for Americans, why don't you ponder the fucking concept of making life less shitty for people in other countries, too? You fucking Reagan trickle-down piece of shit. Learn some God damn American history and see what unions have done for the people here.
    Is the concept of high taxes for imports from non-union countries too fucking crazy a concept for your narrow little fucking brain to handle?
    Or, let me guess, you just think what your daddy thinks.
    You fucking tool.

  100. Re:First post: When are there going to new shows? by Xman73x · · Score: 0

    Wow all this hobo jumbo over a Writers Guild Strike because they weren't getting enough money to make these TV shows? And still theres no word on when my favorite show Bionic Woman Returns on Cable TV again well I have Sateilite so I can watch it whenever I want to. I have also DVR!.But still 6-8 weeks before we see new Episodes?.Thats Ridiculous!

  101. holy jeez by NewAndFresh · · Score: 1

    Calm down.
    I actually agree with your angry rant. Americans are often seriously ignorant when it comes to the history of their own country. Once you look at the quality of life in this country before and after unions, there's no way you can say the things these people say.
    It's like they're cannibals.
    You can also notice how the quality of life in this country has been steadily dropping since the Reagan-Union-Busting years. It's so weird that Republicans honor Reagan. It's like they're in some kind of bubble.

    --
    Welcome to Costco, I love you.
  102. Writers strike probably good for USA by aaron_pet · · Score: 1

    We watch way too much TV.

    less shows = less watchy? = more time doing productive work?

    (probably not, but sounds right)

    --
    Please use [ informative / summarizing ] SUBJECT LINES
    Flame me here
  103. The day you are beaten without cause by the police by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    .... you will remember your idiotic tirade about human rights been nothing but mental masturbations.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  104. Get a Tivo or equivalent. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Then you will watch only good TV.

    I buy a weekly listing, find the programs that are worth my time and record them. I may not watch them all, but when I feel like watching I know I have quality stuff on disk.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  105. Re:The day you are beaten without cause by the pol by Threni · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure Rodney King now knows his rights are nothing but mental masturbations.

  106. Cost??? by Nodlehs · · Score: 1

    Who said hobbies had to cost money? You obviously have a computer, why not get into programming? Don't blame cost as the reason you have nothing to do but watch TV. Stop paying for TV, use that money for all those hobbies you can't afford to get into.

  107. Doctor Who? by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 1

    Do you guys get Doctor Who? Or Torchwood?

    1. Re:Doctor Who? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Old episodes of Dr Who, but only if you have cable. I don't.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  108. I have this amazing by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

    Someone should have told the Superfriends and Legion of Doom that. Every episode has some amazing technology that is never used again. In this case, a time machine (and others I am sure I am forgetting as well). Really, this is one of the worst of the worst. And really, if you have this technology ... you stealing gold why exactly?

    --
    Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion