Slashdot Mirror


Cisco and iRobot Create Sheldonbot-Like Telepresence System

sweetpea86 writes "Cisco has teamed up with robotics firm iRobot to create their own enterprise version of the 'Sheldonbot' from US comedy series The Big Bang Theory. The robot, known as Ava 500, brings together iRobot's autonomous navigation with Cisco's TelePresence system to enable a remote worker sitting in front of a video collaboration system to meet with colleagues in an office setting or take part in a facility tour."

123 comments

  1. A solution looking for a problem by sjbe · · Score: 2

    The robot, known as Ava 500, brings together iRobot's autonomous navigation with Cisco's TelePresence system to enable a remote worker sitting in front of a video collaboration system to meet with colleagues in an office setting or take part in a facility tour."

    You could take a facility tour or do a video conference with someone holding a smartphone for a LOT less money.

    There are excellent uses for telerobotic systems. This is not one of them. This is a solution looking for a problem.

    1. Re:A solution looking for a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because a person carrying around a phones time is free.

    2. Re:A solution looking for a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in china... ROI on one hour minimum wage of 15.2 yan vs a Cisco robot with smartnet...

    3. Re:A solution looking for a problem by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      This is a minor annoyance affecting people with lots of money being used to justify the development of technology.

      The problems with someone carrying a smartphone are that the view will wobble, the carrier is in control of the movement, the speakerphone may not be sufficiently clear, and the phone itself is too small to be easily recognized as a person.

      Sure, a smartphone is fine for giving an ill relative a presence at a family gathering. For a multi-million-dollar contract hinging on the tour of a facility, those tiny annoyances getting in the way of clear communication become major obstacles, worth throwing money at until the "visitor" can control a stable view of the facility, speak and hear clearly, and easily have all of the social graces that are expected of a presence rather than a phone call.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    4. Re:A solution looking for a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you can't. Someone has to pay for the person moving the smartphone/tablet around. If you have enough demand for a telepresence robot it'll be a lot cheaper then paying a worker to ferry around the remote end in the long run.

    5. Re:A solution looking for a problem by sjbe · · Score: 1

      The problems with someone carrying a smartphone are that the view will wobble, the carrier is in control of the movement, the speakerphone may not be sufficiently clear, and the phone itself is too small to be easily recognized as a person.

      So mount it to a cart, shout instructions through it, get a better speakerphone and recognize the fact that a robot is not a person. I give facetime tours to family members all the time. It's not perfect but it's fine and having a robot would not actually make the tour better, particularly if there were stairs involved.

      For a multi-million-dollar contract hinging on the tour of a facility

      If it is a multi-million $ contract you're not going to do that through a remote robot in the real world. You are going yourself or you are sending a trusted agent on your behalf.

    6. Re:A solution looking for a problem by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      So mount it to a cart, shout instructions through it, get a better speakerphone and recognize the fact that a robot is not a person. I give facetime tours to family members all the time. It's not perfect but it's fine and having a robot would not actually make the tour better, particularly if there were stairs involved.

      While it may be amusing to think that executives are willing to shout and wait for someone to follow their orders, people don't work that way. If a person (even an executive) is curious about something, they want to just go look at it, not ask somebody else to push them over toward that whatchamacallit by the thingy under the wossname.

      You are going yourself or you are sending a trusted agent on your behalf.

      Eventually, yeah... but the first few facility tours don't need to actually involve a physical presence. It's a sniff test to make sure the outfit meets the unwritten requirements, runs according to the unspoken standards, and generally fits what the executive's looking for. That's hard to trust (or even describe) to a low-pay staffer, so the executives (or other highly-paid officials) end up wasting a lot of time and money flying around to all the facilities being considered. If a facility can offer a telepresence robot as an option, the executive gets to run the tour himself, look at everything he wants to, and still have dinner at home. That makes for a happier prospective customer, which makes for a better chance to win the contract.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    7. Re:A solution looking for a problem by sjbe · · Score: 1

      While it may be amusing to think that executives are willing to shout and wait for someone to follow their orders, people don't work that way.

      Yeah, actually they do. And it doesn't have to be executives doing the shouting either. If you are doing a teleconference where a walkabout is necessary, it's not remotely difficult to get someone to point a camera at the things someone at the other end of the cable wants to look at. I'd be happy to tote around a camera to show off my manufacturing plant to someone remotely should the need ever arise. Not a big deal at all.

      Eventually, yeah... but the first few facility tours don't need to actually involve a physical presence.

      Do you have the foggiest idea how many facility tours you would have to do to justify one of these things even if the technology provided some advantage? (and it doesn't provide any advantage) I am an accountant so let me make it simple for you. There is NO company that could possibly economically justify one of these for the purpose of conducting tours. Even if you paid someone $50/hour (which would be absurd) you'd have to use the thing for several hundred hours to just break even. It makes no economic sense whatsoever.

      This is a geeky, because-I-can sort of technology with very narrow, if any, application in the real world.

    8. Re:A solution looking for a problem by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      Do you have the foggiest idea how many facility tours you would have to do to justify one of these things even if the technology provided some advantage?

      If the tour makes a good enough impression to land an extra big contract, one.

      (and it doesn't provide any advantage)

      I work at a financial services firm whose clients are the ones making those multi-million-dollar deals. Yes, they care about doing things themselves, having those little annoyances stripped away, and just getting business done without wasting time giving trivial orders. There are a few old rich folks who want others to do the work for them, but mostly the people who are still making big deals want to be a part of those deals, not be led around on a leash.

      You can keep blindly asserting that this is a frivolous technology, but it just makes it more obvious that you have no understanding of how sales works.

      I am an accountant so let me make it simple for you. There is NO company that could possibly economically justify one of these for the purpose of conducting tours. Even if you paid someone $50/hour (which would be absurd) you'd have to use the thing for several hundred hours to just break even.

      Alright, Mr. Accountant. Please close the payroll book and look at the marketing budget, instead. Under the "investment" section, note the amount spent on accommodating tours, including coffee, lobby maintenance, distributed sales literature, and the insurance policy for letting visitors poke around the facility. Now look at the ROI for those, and go ask your sales team if a robot would help their presentation.

      This is a geeky, because-I-can sort of technology with very narrow, if any, application in the real world.

      Just like LED displays, rapid prototyping, data analysis, and all the other narrow-application technologies that are first used for marketing, then move on into less profitable fields.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    9. Re:A solution looking for a problem by r0kk3rz · · Score: 1

      You could take a facility tour or do a video conference with someone holding a smartphone for a LOT less money.

      There are excellent uses for telerobotic systems. This is not one of them. This is a solution looking for a problem.

      You're missing the point, a person holding a smartphone controls what the viewer sees, a robotic system gives the viewer control of what they see which adds to the immersion.

      Done right the experience from the viewer should be akin to a first person videogame, and combined with the likes of the Occulus Rift headset it could be a game changer.

    10. Re:A solution looking for a problem by sjbe · · Score: 1

      If the tour makes a good enough impression to land an extra big contract, one.

      Not a marketing guy are you? If you want to impress someone this is a really poor way to do it. If I'm the one considering spending millions of dollars my very first question is going to be, "why are you spending tens of thousands of dollars on a frivolous robot?" With the implication that if you are willing to waste money on this, what else are you willing to waste money on?

      I work at a financial services firm whose clients are the ones making those multi-million-dollar deals. Yes, they care about doing things themselves, having those little annoyances stripped away, and just getting business done without wasting time giving trivial orders. There are a few old rich folks who want others to do the work for them, but mostly the people who are still making big deals want to be a part of those deals, not be led around on a leash.

      Which is why they put their own eyes on what they are investing in. I think you are assuming things you have no direct experience with. You may work at a financial services company but I've worked in finance. I've negotiated multi-million dollar contracts for products. I quote jobs with total values in the millions at least twice a month and I'm usually involved in the sales calls too. I've got years of direct dealings with purchasing agents, upper management, venture capitalists, M&A financiers and lawyers, bankers and entrepreneurs who make the sort of investments you are talking about. I have NEVER seen any situation where a robot like this would have even remotely improved the chances of getting a contract. The ONLY case where doing something like this might make sense is if you are a robotics company selling a robot and you are using it as a technology demonstrator. For my company, it would be criminally wasteful as well as pointless.

      Alright, Mr. Accountant. Please close the payroll book and look at the marketing budget, instead. Under the "investment" section, note the amount spent on accommodating tours, including coffee, lobby maintenance, distributed sales literature, and the insurance policy for letting visitors poke around the facility. Now look at the ROI for those, and go ask your sales team if a robot would help their presentation

      Well, since I manage a sales team let me clue you in. Those items are a rounding error compared to the cost of a robot. Especially a robot for which there is no compelling need and which would see at best occasional use. You are seriously comparing a capital expense that will cost tens of thousands of dollar to the cost of a few brochures, some coffee and maybe a plane ticket? The circumstances under which a robot like that would be a sensible investment are so rare as to be effectively non-existent.

      Look, I get that the technology is pretty neat and as a basic research platform some useful stuff might come out of it. That doesn't mean that there is a good business case for doing it to conduct plant tours. This is the robotic equivalent of a Segway. Kinda cool in a geeky sort of way but doesn't really solve a problem anyone actually has better than existing solutions and is absurdly expensive. Great as a technology demonstrator but useless and even financially irresponsible as an actual product.

  2. We do what we must, because we can by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    Ahh... I'm not sure I see the benefit, physical interactivity is still at a minimum, and cost would be higher. What will this do for a meeting that a regular video conference can't? Shake hands -? A tour can be done with a wireless webcam.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  3. Just one thing by Sparticus789 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It needs a robot arm. So that I can buy my Mountain Dew and Hot Pockets at the grocery store without ever leaving my house.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
    1. Re:Just one thing by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      Peapod.com
      You're welcome.

  4. Re:iRobU by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    I disagree with you on all those counts, but I'd suspect most males between 15 and 50 watch the show primarily because of Penny.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  5. Hmmm .... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    Didn't Wally do this in Dilbert a while back?

    Sounds like an idea which most people will wonder why they're doing it.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  6. Autonomous Navigation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, while I'm trying to talk to the person on the other end of the robot, it will be either picking a random direction to go, spinning in ever widening circles, or running into a wall?

    1. Re:Autonomous Navigation? by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      You left out vacuuming the floor and providing a mobile bed for the cat

    2. Re:Autonomous Navigation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep think about going to the RC Hobby shop for supplies to build an RC Mower I could sit on the deck under the umbrella with a cold drink while mowing. I'm not lazy my back just can't handle it anymore that happens when you get old.

    3. Re:Autonomous Navigation? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      I keep think about going to the RC Hobby shop for supplies to build an RC Mower I could sit on the deck under the umbrella with a cold drink while mowing. I'm not lazy my back just can't handle it anymore that happens when you get old.

      i wonder if you could just use the brains from one of those robotic vaccum cleaners and wire it up to more powerful servos/motors to control the mower that way little or no human interaction is required assuming you mulch the grass rather than bag it.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    4. Re:Autonomous Navigation? by chromas · · Score: 1

      But do watch out for the shrunken kids.

    5. Re:Autonomous Navigation? by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      You people overthink everything.

      1) Get a self-propelled mower
      2) Sink a pole into the middle of your lawn
      3) Tie a rope from the one side of the mower to the pole
      4) Tape the mower handle down so it goes on its own

      The rope will keep it going in circles around the pole. Each lap, the rope will wrap around the pole, causing the mower to spiral inwards, cutting nice clean circles of grass until it reaches the center. At that time, put down your lemonade and turn off the mower.

      **Works best on lawns that are perfect circles.

  7. You know that it wasn't a prop, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sheldonbot is a Texai Remote Presence System from Willow Garage, so recreating Sheldonbot is just copying some other company's product.

    1. Re:You know that it wasn't a prop, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't watch the show, but clicked to post this.

      Cisco isn't doing anything innovative here, unless the joint venture includes proper Roomba features.

      Will I get paid more for remotely vacuuming as well as working?

  8. Sheldonbot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it was Shelbot, not Sheldonbot!

    1. Re:Sheldonbot? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      Whatever it's called, its no Roboz.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    2. Re:Sheldonbot? by arfonrg · · Score: 1

      I cried a little when he broke his Apple ][ monitor...

      --
      Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  9. iRobot's Navigation Tech by VorpalRodent · · Score: 1

    I have a Scooba (Roomba for mopping). If its ability to navigate is an example of the "Autonomous Navigation" described in the summary...well, it's not particularly reassuring about the future of telepresence.

    --
    Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
    1. Re:iRobot's Navigation Tech by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Don't you walk in a random until you meet a wall or object at your work? I must be doing something wrong.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  10. Richard Garriot uses something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trendsetting even at home.

    I wonder if Cisco's costs less than $15,000... hahaha, who am I kidding? It's probably 100k easy.

  11. Re:iRobU by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have always prefered Bernadette myself, She just has curves in the right places.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  12. I want the consumer version with robotic arms ... by argoff · · Score: 1

    ... that way I can hire somebody from India to clean my house, mow the yard, do dishes, and laundry remotely over the internet. At an estimated 70K for this one, I don't think that's going to work out for me anytime soon.

  13. I bet... by arfonrg · · Score: 1

    ...if I used one at work, no one would notice (until something broke).

    --
    Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    1. Re:I bet... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      I'm not buying this until it has a TASER available. Or at least a pointy stick.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    2. Re:I bet... by arfonrg · · Score: 1

      For $99.99 you can have a LASER attached to it's head...

      --
      Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    3. Re:I bet... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      For $99.99 you can have a LASER attached to it's head...

      And for about $2 you can duck tape a pointy stick to it.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:I bet... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      And for about $2 you can duck tape a pointy stick to it.

      If you are using $2 worth of duct tape you are using way too much, you don't need the whole roll.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    5. Re:I bet... by arfonrg · · Score: 1

      A pointy stick is so 20,000 BC

      --
      Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    6. Re:I bet... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I was counting the pointy stick as most of that cost. ;-)

      But you definitely want your pointy stick to be solidly attached -- that way you can have telepresence robot jousting on Fridays.

      But, really, anybody with one of these better be saying "exterminate! exterminate!" at every possible opportunity, or they've missed the point.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:I bet... by Antipater · · Score: 1

      He said duck tape. It's rather more expensive than duct tape, since they have to catch and render the ducks.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    8. Re:I bet... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Except, the original term was "duck tape" and not "duct tape" -- because it served as waterproofing for ammunition boxes and had nothing to do with ductwork.

      It's actually not a very good use on ducts, since it doesn't do the right things -- in some places, it's against code to use it for ducts.

      If you have duck tape on your ducts, whoever put it there was lazy (or cheap).

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    9. Re:I bet... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      A pointy stick is so 20,000 BC

      So are fire and the wheel, but still very effective nonetheless.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    10. Re:I bet... by filthpickle · · Score: 1

      My 5th grade teacher was vehemently against some of the language of the Midwestern kids that came thru his classroom. Thanks to him I stopped saying ain't, warsh, 'at instead of that, 's when it wasn't plural...etc. "Duct" tape not "duck" tape was one of his peeves. Years later when I heard what you said above...I so wanted to track him down and tell him. But I have promised not to be that kind of an asshole anymore. One day at a time.

  14. Awesome by torjeh · · Score: 1

    If you can't find a use for this, I suggest you try a bit harder. In my humble opinion, these are awesome. But you probably want one that you can develop for yourself, and add external devices such as cameras or other sensors. Here's one example of a mobile video conference unit that has found good use in health care. http://www.giraff.org/?lang=en

  15. Re:I want the consumer version with robotic arms . by Antipater · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh lord, I can hear it now. "They don't even have to immigrate anymore to take our jobs!"

    --
    Everything is better with chainsaws.
  16. Re:iRobU by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You must be just a miserable person.
    Here is a little tip for life, being overly critical of everything isn't proof that you are smart or know what you are talking about.
    I like the show, however sometimes I feel they go too far to try to portate the stereotype of the geek, but once you realise that, just let it slide and enjoy the show. You probably won't get a life awakening moments in it, but get a few chuckles out of it.

    It is probably the best show around that express Geek type culture out there without it, being overly negative about it. These guys do find Girls, they do work past some of their personality flaws. They are shown as Humans, not as some sort of freaks. Is it perfect, no. But I wouldn't expect it to be, otherwise it wouldn't appeal to much of an audience.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  17. Fundamental problem by Migraineman · · Score: 1

    They're billing this as a shared resource. You're still going to need someone to change the t-shirt.

  18. Many other telepresence robots. by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative

    There have been quite a few of these things. MantaRobot, Vgo, Anybot, and Texai/Suitable, all have commercial, mobile, telepresence robots available now. They all shove a videophone in someone's face.

    Vgo probably has the best use case. They sell it to medical facilities, so doctors don't have to move around as much. This is an indication of the market. Telepresence only works if the person operating the device is someone the listeners have to suck up to.

  19. Gotta minute? by cockpitcomp · · Score: 1

    This would be a great tool. When I worked onsite and needed a key person's time, I followed the time honored tradition of camping out in their cube until my questions were answered. Working offsite I just get their voice mail. If I could jump into one of these, I could corner people the same way.

    1. Re:Gotta minute? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      until the reach over and flip the volume down to zero and switch off the monitor. cube camping work because they cant turn you off.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    2. Re:Gotta minute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you live in Texas.

    3. Re:Gotta minute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cube camping work because they cant turn you off.

      You haven't seen my coworkers.

  20. Re:iRobU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Extreme virginity detected. Solution: User alphatel must speak to people outside of internet forums and small circle of equally angry geek friends.

  21. Demolition man? by witherstaff · · Score: 1

    Wasn't this in demolition man? I vaguely recall wesley snipes destroying a bunch of robots with human faces having a meeting.

    1. Re:Demolition man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah dude, but most people here where born after that movie has been in the cinemas, and al gore had not invented the internet yet ;)

    2. Re:Demolition man? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Yeah dude, but most people here where born after that movie has been in the cinemas, and al gore had not invented the internet yet ;)

      And those of us who were around thought it was a crappy movie and have been trying to forget it since then.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Demolition man? by Thud457 · · Score: 2

      demolition man

      crappy movie

      He doesn't know how to use the three seashells!

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    4. Re:Demolition man? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      He doesn't know how to use the three seashells!

      He probably doesn't even eat at Taco Bell.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  22. infinite discordian possibilities by nimbius · · Score: 2

    1. immediately proceed to the bathroom, become known as "that bathroom robot that slowly sings 'bad romance' by lady gaga all day long"
    2. have conversation with boss in which you slowly inch further away from her until you're nearly down the hallway.
    3. only one speed: bat-out-of-hell fast. insist a racing stripe, cubicle nametag change to 'the crimson terror'
    4. stand near vending machines, stare forcefully into coworkers eyes.
    5. "Leave" work at the end of the day, exit parking lot, local intersection, merge onto freeway.
    4. attend meetings, take your place at the table, begin slowly rotating around and around. do not stop until the meeting ends.
    3. telepresence camera can and will be pointed at anything. this becomes a known fact as your attendance on tuedays is now referred to as 'that electric bellybutton on wheels'
    2. once per day, fly out the door, race through the parking lot and directly into the quarter panel of the most expensive car you find. insist this is a bug.
    1. show up to work, insist the use of the telepresence robot during all interaction. refuse any requests that do not utilize it.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:infinite discordian possibilities by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      attend meetings, take your place at the table, begin slowly rotating around and around. do not stop until the meeting ends.

      This alone justifies the entire research budget!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  23. Surrogates anyone? by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 1

    They made a movie about this...

  24. Marissa Mayer by 2phar · · Score: 1

    Marissa needs to get one of these for checking up on all those staff that aren't allowed telework.

  25. PennyBot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bazongas...

  26. Re:iRobU by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    Not really, Penny is getting pretty fat. There are other shows with much more attractive ladies to look at.

    yeah but if you're a really pathetic "nerd"(hipster white knight) then you must watch shows which aren't about boobs to watch boobs.

    AANYHOW.. Back to the fucking story. why are we having a story about another one of these? https://www.google.com/search?q=telepresence+robot&num=30&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=fi&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&authuser=0&biw=1472&bih=815

    like fuck, did someone really think that the shows writers came up with the idea??

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  27. Re:iRobU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She's not short, she's fun sized!

  28. Re:You know that it wasn't a prop, right? FTFY by zlives · · Score: 1

    "Cisco hasn't done anything innovative for a long time"

  29. Cost/Benefit by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Because a person carrying around a phones time is free.

    I can pay someone to carry around a phone for a LOOOOONG time before I could justify paying for a robot to do the same thing. The accounting is pretty easy here. Multi-thousand dollar robot + service staff or cheap intern + smartphone. Not exactly a tough call to make if you care about not wasting money.

    1. Re:Cost/Benefit by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      You are clearly on a popular strategy here:

      "We do not need telephones, because we have messenger boys" - a British Government - presumably some time in late 1800's.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    2. Re:Cost/Benefit by citizenr · · Score: 1

      You are clearly on a popular strategy here:

      "We do not need telephones, because we have messenger boys" - a British Government - presumably some time in late 1800's.

      telephones provide instant gratification versus messenger boy, what does this big expensive fragile slow robot give you versus slave with a phone?

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    3. Re:Cost/Benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > what does this big expensive fragile slow robot give you versus slave with a phone?

      Not having the slave see all the sensitive stuff you're viewing?

    4. Re:Cost/Benefit by riT-k0MA · · Score: 1

      Just the NSA.

    5. Re:Cost/Benefit by sjbe · · Score: 1

      You are clearly on a popular strategy here:
      "We do not need telephones, because we have messenger boys" - a British Government - presumably some time in late 1800's.

      Your argument depends upon a false equivalency. The basic technology to do the functions of remote presence has been in existence and in use for quite some time now. Telephones permitted vastly improved communication over what was available at the time.

      I've been in literally hundreds of manufacturing facilities worldwide and precisely zero of them would allow a self guided device like this loose in their plant. Aside from being stupidly expensive and redundant and solving a problem no one has, they have safety problems, training problems, and require maintenance. In a conference room, a large screen provides a better interface. In a plant, you can accomplish the same result for FAR less money with a smartphone and a friendly guide. If someone really needs to look around carefully, they'll either come themselves or send a representative.

  30. Re:iRobU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sea kelp.

  31. Friendbot 1.0 by sjbe · · Score: 2

    It needs a robot arm. So that I can buy my Mountain Dew and Hot Pockets at the grocery store without ever leaving my house.

    There is a neat invention for that that already exists. It's called a friend. Try one out sometime.

    (I kid, I kid...)

    1. Re:Friendbot 1.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I had trouble with the whole friend thing, because I didn't see where I could buy one online from my basement. However, eventually I discovered the right place to purchase those services and immediately had a friend come over.

      She looked confused when I asked her to go pick me up some Mountain Dew and Cheetos down at the corner, but she came back with them. I thought 300 dollars was a little steep, but I figured that I needed to buy in bulk with this service.

      She was actually a pretty attractive friend, despite the troweled on makeup, and she must have not had a lot of business, because all she had on under her coat was her underwear. Poor thing, I gave her a few extra bucks to buy some clothes.

  32. Combine it with Oculus Rift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you combined it with Oculus Rift that could potentially save a lot of travel time.

  33. Re:iRobU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be a bundle of joy for the people around you!

  34. Batteries by Tighe_L · · Score: 1

    This is great, it will be good for about 3 months then the battery won't hold a charge. :-) Just like my two useless Roombas.

    1. Re:Batteries by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      This is great, it will be good for about 3 months then the battery won't hold a charge. :-) Just like my two useless Roombas.

      Which brings up an interesting idea. Maybe while your telepresence CEO is moving about the office looking for slackers, a built in Roomba in the base could vacuum as he went...maybe follow the walls or shoot off at 45 degrees if he hits an obstacle.

  35. Crap.... by EvilSS · · Score: 1

    Now my inner voice when reading slashdot posts is Sheldon.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  36. Does this mean... by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

    We are getting closer to having our own Turrets from Portal?

    Because I can totally live with my own version of Sheldonbot.

  37. BBT didn't invent the presence-bot by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Cisco has teamed up with robotics firm iRobot to create their own enterprise version of the 'Sheldonbot' from US comedy series The Big Bang Theory.

    Presence-bots were around long before Big Bang Theory made them hilarious. This just looks like a fancier version of the same with smoother curves and all the wires on the inside.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:BBT didn't invent the presence-bot by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Im thinking your universe has a different Big Bang Theory than mine...
      Hilarious is a huge overkill for anything on that show.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    2. Re:BBT didn't invent the presence-bot by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Hilarious is a huge overkill for anything on that show.

      Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that you're the arbiter of what's funny and what isn't. Everybody? Did you hear? BBT's not funny any more, arkane1234 said!

      Of course, I should acknowledge the apparent irony of calling you out for this when I've previously declared it "hilarious" without a six-foot-high disclaimer that that's my personal subjective opinion. The difference, of course, is that that was a throw-away adjective casually tossed in for mild comic effect, and that I didn't post solely to prove my inherent superiority by sneering down my nose at people who enjoy something I don't.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:BBT didn't invent the presence-bot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't post solely to prove my inherent superiority by sneering down my nose at people who enjoy something I don't.

      You should sneer at him for being too stupid to understand the jokes.

  38. Re:iRobU by alphatel · · Score: 1

    You must be just a miserable person.

    I disagree. My good friends Gordon Ramsey and Simon Cowell say I am quite fun and an "all-around cheery bloke"

    Here is a little tip for life, being overly critical of everything isn't proof that you are smart or know what you are talking about. I like the show, however sometimes I feel they go too far to try to portate the stereotype of the geek, but once you realise that, just let it slide and enjoy the show.

    Not to be "overly critical of everything" but you just had two typos.

    You probably won't get a life awakening moments in it, but get a few chuckles out of it.

    Neither happened. Perhaps this is the new way of the /. in which case I should use my robotic arm to shelve myself and permanently archive any dissension from something as important as "Sheldonbraut".

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
  39. Re:iRobU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are shown as Humans, not as some sort of freaks.

    They're caricatures. Sheldon is the mad scientist. Howard is the horny Jew. Raj is the fresh-off-the-boat immigrant. Penny is the airheaded waitress. Despite the trappings of geek culture, the show is actually a pretty formulaic sitcom with simple plots and low-brow jokes. (Raj can't speak to women, so he takes experimental medicine and takes off his pants. A man in tighty-whities is always good for laughs.) They could all be factory workers and the show would be pretty much the same.

    That said, if you judge it according to what it is trying to be, it is in fact very well done and a good example of a formulaic sitcom.

  40. Why am I thinking... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    ...about stairs and elevators shafts?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  41. What did you expect? by denzacar · · Score: 2

    It's a sitcom for people who enjoy laughing at stereotypes presented in that show.

    It's like a show about Asian people where the punchline is "those crazy Asians - they're so funny when they're all Asian and stuff".
    Or a show about black people where the punchline is "them crazy niggers - they're so funny when they're black and stuff".
    Or a show about women where the punchline is "those crazy cunts - they're so funny when they're all cunty and stuff".

    Cases above were inspired by a colleague's review of "Will & Grace".
    It went something like "Do you watch Will and Grace? Those homos are so funny".

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  42. Re:iRobU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have always prefered Bernadette myself, She just has curves in the right places.

    Hidden well under her clothes is the "right place"? Most men would beg to differ. Admit it- you're turned on because her voice sounds like Howard's mother, and that gets you going.

  43. Re:iRobU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Damn, I wish I'd looked at the front page when I was home at lunch instead of replying to messages in the /. message center; I can't log in here. But DUDE!!!

    * Not funny
    Not if you're not smart enough to understand the jokes.

    Not brainy
    The actress who plays Amy holds a PhD in neuroscience (note that she plays a neuroscientist). Nobel winning astrophysicist Dr. George Smoot guest starred in an episode; he's a fan. Hilarious line from Dr. Smoot: "With all due respects, Dr. Cooper, but are you on crack?" Stephen Hawking is a fan as well and guest starred twice (Sheldon's reaction when Hawking pointed out a math error Cooper had made had me rolling on the floor). Not brainy? WTF? Of course, my answer to #1 explains #2, for example in The Terminator Decoupling it begins with an electrical terminator but the episode is about them riding on a train with Summer Glau.

    Not relevant
    With all due respect, Dr. alphatel, but are you on crack? Not only has Dr. Smoot and Dr. Hawking guest starred, so has Buzz Aldrin (you know, the guy who went to the moon with Neil Armstrong?) and most of the casts of ST:OS and ST:NG, most of whom play themselves. Slashdotter Wil Wheaton (I'll point out that he's Wesley Crusher since I doubt you're a nerd) is a recurring guest. If you think it isn't relevant I'm wondering if maybe you're on the wrong site? I guess you think HHGTG is not funny, brainy, or relevant, either.

    Sheesh, dumb kids.

    mcgrew here, I'll log in tonight and verify my identity.

    PS, the moderators got it wrong (unless Wheaton was moderating in which case "flamebait" was indeed accurate). Whoever modded you up doesn't belong here any more than you do.

  44. Re:iRobU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because she likes nerdy types? Anyway, that show is circling the drain. It's going down the well-trodden path of replacing the original concept with "who-fucks-whom", from sitcom to rel(ationship)com, so to speak.

  45. Re:iRobU by Hatta · · Score: 1

    BBT:Geeks::Al Jolson:Africans

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  46. Oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thought this might have something to do with a Sheldon Plan, disappointed.

    1. Re:Oh... by Space · · Score: 1

      Fail.
      I believe you tried to refer to "The Seldon Plan" from Asimov's Fondation series.

      --
      I Don't Work Here
  47. Tigers however do not relish the peach by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    fine, give it a whole bunch of red currants.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  48. Re:iRobU by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2

    Obviously you're going to get flame baited here, but those of us that enjoy art would agree. The show sucks. Can't watch it. Its the worst sitcom I've seen in years. It has the quality writing, acting and directing of a Disney Channel show.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  49. Re:iRobU by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

    The IT Crowd is probably the best show around that express Geek type culture out there without being overly negative about it.

    FTFY

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  50. Re:iRobU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So he hates a show that other people like, that makes him miserable? Here's a tip for life, you have terrible taste.

  51. Re:iRobU by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Yes, that was me. If you want to respond, respond to this comment or I won't see it.

  52. Re:iRobU by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I like the show, however sometimes I feel they go too far to try to portate the stereotype of the geek

    The four main characters, to me, are all caricatures of me when I was young. That makes it even funnier to me. Apparently to Buzz Aldrin, George Smoot, and Stephen Hawkins, all fans of the show who have appeared on it poking fun at themselves. The Buzz Aldrin one was hilarious; Howard had just returned from the ISS and wouldn't shut up about space until Bernadette gave him a video of Aldrin passing out Halloween candy. "Here's a Mars bar. Mars is in space. Here's a Milkey Way. Here's a moon pie. I've been on the moon!"

    If you can't laugh at yourself you have no right to laugh at anyone else.

    And they make fun of stupid jocks as much as they make fun of us, like when the four were measuring the distance to the moon by shooting a high powered laser at the mirror astronauts left there, and Penny's stupid boyfriend says "You're shooting a laser at the moon? Aren't you afraid you'll blow it up?"

    That last paragraph you made was insightful.

  53. Re:iRobU by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    As trolls go, you really suck at it, son. I just visited your comment page, nothing whatever there except trolling and flamebaiting and every single comment at -1. Moron.

    How about you just get the fuck off this site, asshole? Why do you do that, just a pussy little cunt who'd like to do it in real life but don't have the guts?

    Eat shit and die, loser.

  54. Re:iRobU by mcgrew · · Score: 2

    Not to be "overly critical of everything" but you just had two typos.

    Teh first typo was a normal geek letter transposition I illustrated in the first word of this sentence, the second wasn't a typo but rather British spelling. Both show that he wasn't using a spell checker which shows that he is, in fact, literate.

    When you bash fans of that show you're bashing Buzz Aldrin, Stephen Hawking, Nobel-winning astrophysicist George Smoot, and the actor Wil Wheaton, all of whom have said publicly that they are fans.

    If you don't think it's funny it's because you're not smart enough to understand the humor. In fact, my daughter bought the first two seasons on DVD for me saying "I know you'll like this, you'll get all the jokes."

    Sorry for your lack of intelligence, son.

  55. Re:iRobU by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    They could all be factory workers and the show would be pretty much the same.

    A show about factory workers would have those factory workers shooting a high powered laser at the moon? Would a show about factory workers have Stephen Hawkings, George Smoot, Buzz Aldrin, and half the casts of STOS and STNG as guest stars? Would a show about factory workers have jokes about subatomic particle physics, astrophysics, and math? Would a show about factory workers have have a joke about someone flash freezing a banana with liquid nitrogen because they didn't have a knife?

    I don't think so. A factory worker wouldn't get half the jokes, and the people I know IRL who don't think it's funny and don't like it are all uneducated high school dropouts.

  56. Re:iRobU by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Sorry the jokes on it go so far over your head, Bill. I will agree that the math joke on Sheldon's marker board is a bit long in the tooth, but it's funny if you haven't seen it before.

  57. Re:iRobU by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    You're example of the show's wonderful humor is the line "With all due respects, Dr. Cooper, but are you on crack?" ? wow. That's a great one there... I'm sure you had to be there. ... OR ON CRACK*.

    *See what i did there? Not funny at all.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  58. Wasn't is actually "Shelbot" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am pretty sure that Penny dubbed Sheldon's telepresence "Shelbot", as in in "What up Shelbot?" Something like that anyway.

  59. Re:iRobU by denzacar · · Score: 1

    A show about factory workers would have those factory workers shooting a high powered laser at the moon?

    It may have a character jump over a shark, would that do?

    and the people I know IRL who don't think it's funny and don't like it are all uneducated high school dropouts.

    Correlation is not causation.
    It's often not even correlation but a case of a cherry picked set.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  60. Re:iRobU by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    It may have a character jump over a shark, would that do?

    Nope.

    Correlation is not causation.
    It's often not even correlation but a case of a cherry picked set.

    True, but when there is correlation there are four possibles reasons for correlation:

    1. A causes B
    2. B causes A
    3. C causes both A and B
    4. Coincidence

    Occam says A in this case. One can only come to conclusions with the data one has. Provide further data and I may change my conclusion, which is people who don't think it's funny only hear a loud WOOSH.

  61. But what about all the good uses for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First of all, full disclosure. I am a Cisco Systems Telepresence Engineer and think this technology is to be blunt, incredibly awesome. That being said what I am about to say may be a bit sided. I can imagine lots of uses for this thing. Advanced versions could have robotic arms that enables a specialist Dr from anywhere in the world to Telejump from one side of the world to perform a life saving operation. A bomb tech could mess up more than once, (sorry I know their are already better devices for this, just needed some humor). A person could do a house tour from anywhere in the world remotely (assuming the house doesn't have stairs this bot can do a bit of stair nav, perhaps a real-estate version. One plant inspector could inspect multiple plants (chemical gas etc) without flying to remote locations. Highly advanced versions could allow a key resource to work multiple job sites and engage (or even this version) in planning and interactive meetings from a corporate location.

    Military families could "Telejump" home to read their kids a night time story, (people on ships submarines, or anywhere with a decent connection) (when the cost comes down). Imagine a smaller home model you could log into and use to check up on your "pet" and make sure you turned off the gas stove before you went to work, and imagine a robotic arm attached that would enable you to do it with relative ease from a smart phone. Now imagine you have no legs and can't reach things high up and you have no one to help you. This could literally be the difference between living alone and feeling self sufficient or being stuck in a home. Even if it means a remote friend could check up on you (hospice or some other). Imagine being able to get one of these for your parents so the next time they ask you a computer problem you can telejump over to their house a thousand miles away and explain to them that the reason their laptop isn't working might have something to do with the power cable being unplugged and the batteries being drained. I can think of infinite uses for one of these things, just has to start with the big companies with the vision and the need (and of course the capitol). As technologies improve who knows what these could do.

    And finally,

    I'm sure the military has already specked these robots for weapons and aligned the TP cameras to gun sites, thus,

    We can remotely fight the coming zombie apocalypse, and don't forget Dalaks, never forget those silly Dalaks. :)

  62. Re:iRobU by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

    A show about factor workers would have those factory workers performing different hijinks at work. There would be different guest stars, but there'd still be guest stars. Different ingredients, same formula. And if you pay attention, many of the jokes only use science references as window dressing, when the real punchline is often something like Raj's inadvertent gay innuendo.

    The Big Bang Theory is one of the highest rated shows. It is not a niche show that only appeals to intellectuals because of its sophisticated humor. It is a mass-market show that tries harder than you realize to appeal to a broad base.

  63. Re:iRobU by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    It is a mass-market show that tries harder than you realize to appeal to a broad base.

    Well, of course it is. But a show about factory workers would have jokes that might go over my head, and they'd have somebody like Donald Trump or Jeffworthy guest starring (in the case of Foxworthy, probably just starring).

    There's a certain "formula" that any story has to follow, whether comedy, drama, TV show, movie, or book. Deviate from that too much and your story will suck, as I discovered when turning the nobot stories into a book; there was no continuity.

  64. Re:iRobU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BBT: nerds
    My Name Is Earl: Rednecks.

    BBT: Portrays nerds as highly intelligent and educated, hard working guys who are a bit assburgerish
    MNIE: Portrays rednecks as stupid, theiving punks.

    Yet all the rednecks I know love MMIE. Most of the nerds here love BBT. Not funny? WOOSH!

  65. Re:iRobU by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    They're not over my head, they're just not funny. The level of intelligence required to understand the premise of a joke is in no way corrilated to the humor. It just provides cover and a sense of eliteness for people who don't understand commedy to say "It must go over your head".

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  66. Not tryring to be insulting but... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    It may have a character jump over a shark, would that do?

    Nope.

    You kinda missed the point there. It's called a stunt.
    You know... basing the episode around an act intended to catch you attention instead of on actual story or plot. Or humor.

    Occam says A in this case.

    Actually, Occam says it's what I mentioned above - cherry picking. Also, confirmation bias.

    I'm gonna make a wild guess and assume that your "the people I know IRL who don't think it's funny and don't like it are all uneducated high school dropouts" is a rather limited set.
    Also, that you did no actual statistical analysis on the subject NOR actual inquiry into WHY those and other people find it not funny.

    In other words, all your "conclusions" are actually based on time honored theory of "I like this, this is great, those who don't like it are stupid".

    On the other hand, there are vast numbers of sources pointing out that many of people who don't find TBBT funny or likeable ARE quite intelligent and that they get the intended joke - only they find it not funny at best and cringe worthy at other times.

    http://bigbangmistakes.tumblr.com/whydoesitsuck
    http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9112031
    http://www.spectrecollie.com/archives/2013/01/my-problem-with-the-big-bang-theory
    http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the-problem-with-the-big-bang-theory

    BTW, have you noticed just how much of it's humor is based on a) pop culture references, b) catch phrases and c) laugh track?
    Neither of which is humor.
    One is basic recognition (which presses some of the same buttons in your brain as "getting a joke") and the other two are borderline Pavlovian prods to try to incite laughter.
    "LAUGH MONKEY BOY! LAUGH! BEJEZUZ! ZIMBABWE! BLOOBLOOBLUBLU! LISTEN TO THESE PEOPLE LAUGHING! IT IS SOOOO FUNNY! LAAAAUGH!"

    While we're on the subject of pop culture references...
    American Dad and Family Guy for instance do A LOT of the "pop culture instead of humor" thing.
    Basically, all of its humor is in those bits that have no connection to the story otherwise.
    Not sure about the older episodes but relatively recent seasons of The Simpsons are doing the same thing.
    Except instead of cutting away to completely unrelated characters it's one of the usual clowns (Homer, Wiggum Sr. or Jr. etc.) that does the "IT'S FUNNY! LAUGH!" bit.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re: Not tryring to be insulting but... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You kinda missed the point there. It's called a stunt.

      No, it was a setup for a joke, a way to make fun of stupid people. It played off of a really old Bugs Bunny cartoon and a setup for another joke later in the episode. With Fonzie jumping over a shark the jump itself was the "joke" and was kind of out of character for the character.

      I'm gonna make a wild guess and assume that your "the people I know IRL who don't think it's funny and don't like it are all uneducated high school dropouts" is a rather limited set.

      That would be a logical guess, but no. Most of the people I work with are intelligent and educated, but I chose to live within walking distance from work. I spend very little on gasoline, but the tradeoff is that it's a bad neighborhood. I frequent a bar about fifteen blocks away in an even worse part of town. The bar owner also owns a construction company, and his construction workers are straight out of My Name is Earl. Great fodder for writing even if it is a little dangerous. One guy woke up one morning with a broken leg and had no idea how he broke it! Then there's Crazy John who thinks I'm a space alien, he actually believes he was abducted by aliens a few years ago.

      On the other hand, there are vast numbers of sources pointing out that many of people who don't find TBBT funny or likeable ARE quite intelligent and that they get the intended joke - only they find it not funny at best and cringe worthy at other times.

      I'm sure there are, and there are also intelligent people who just don't have a sense of humor - I've known people like that, too.

      The "cringe worthy" is a result of it hitting too close to home (and yes, it's made me cringe once or twice for that very reason). The blog posts you link are well written and thought out, but the theme is the same -- "They're making fun of me!"

      BTW, have you noticed just how much of it's humor is based on a) pop culture references, b) catch phrases and c) laugh track?

      I can't think of a single TV comedy that doesn't use pop culture references, and they're often funny and often not. I agree with you about the laugh track, I hate laugh tracks and BBT would be, IMO, even funnier without it. Sometimes a laugh track spoils the joke.

      The Simpsons was really good when it was new and my kids were little (Leila turns 27 today) but I haven't watched it in years, its quality dropped greatly, although the movie was good.

      I don't really care for Family Guy or American Dad, even though the few episodes I've seen did have some grin worthy jokes. But I'm not going to bash people who find them hilarious as BBT haters do.

    2. Re: Not tryring to be insulting but... by denzacar · · Score: 1

      I'm gonna make a wild guess and assume that your "the people I know IRL who don't think it's funny and don't like it are all uneducated high school dropouts" is a rather limited set.

      That would be a logical guess, but no. Most of the people I work with are intelligent and educated, but I chose to live within walking distance from work. I spend very little on gasoline, but the tradeoff is that it's a bad neighborhood. I frequent a bar about fifteen blocks away in an even worse part of town. The bar owner also owns a construction company, and his construction workers are straight out of My Name is Earl. Great fodder for writing even if it is a little dangerous. One guy woke up one morning with a broken leg and had no idea how he broke it! Then there's Crazy John who thinks I'm a space alien, he actually believes he was abducted by aliens a few years ago.

      Ummm... Sorry to break it to you, but that's a classic example of a cherry picked set.

      It's like going to China and concluding based on a survey taken from people you meet there that no one speaks Portuguese.
      Or going to an NRA meeting and concluding that everyone is against gun control.
      Or going to an Apple store and concluding that the iPhone is the only brand of mobile phones.
      Meeting one Frenchman and concluding that everyone in France is named Pierre.

      I'm sure there are, and there are also intelligent people who just don't have a sense of humor - I've known people like that, too.

      And that's classic confirmation bias. With a side order of ignoratio elenchi.

      The "cringe worthy" is a result of it hitting too close to home (and yes, it's made me cringe once or twice for that very reason). The blog posts you link are well written and thought out, but the theme is the same -- "They're making fun of me!"

      While that may be true in some cases, it is not necessary to find the quality of jokes to be cringe worthy.

      And then there's the empathy issue.
      Or as someone has put it once - feeling the shame those people on TV are supposed to be feeling in that situation.

      I have that issue with Mr. Bean and most modern sitcoms where intended comedy is a product of greed, ignorance, lying and other negative aspects of personalities of the characters involved.
      With Mr. Bean it always felt to me like someone was trying to make me laugh at a mentally retarded person. Or at least making me watch Rain Man with people who think that movie is a comedy.
      With stuff like Modern Family it feels as if I'm silently supporting every bad decision those characters are making, and then I'm supposed to be laughing at their misfortune.

      I can't think of a single TV comedy that doesn't use pop culture references, and they're often funny and often not.

      Naaah... there's a difference.
      There's occasional use of pop culture references - and then there's basing 90% of jokes on pop culture references alone OR pop culture reference being the joke.
      With or without a non sequitur. Rickroll. Laugh.

      It's a difference between a having an episode with a rodeo clown named John Wayne, and having the whole cast of the show named after serial killers and having them continuously performing acts related to said killers in each episode.
      I.e. Having a guy called Ted Bundy constantly wearing a cast and driving around in a VW Beetle, both being a recurring joke along with everyone looking at him in a strange way when he introduces himself.
      It's a sitcom written by Stephen King. Whatever. Just go with it.

      Name the guy with the WV Beetle John and the clown Ted - and there's no joke left.

      I.e. It was NEVER A JOKE. Just a pop culture reference.

      Leila turns 27 today

      Happy Birthday to her then. :)

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    3. Re: Not tryring to be insulting but... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It's like going to China and concluding based on a survey taken from people you meet there that no one speaks Portuguese.

      Well, statistically, nobody does speak Portuguese.

      I have that issue with Mr. Bean and most modern sitcoms where intended comedy is a product of greed, ignorance, lying and other negative aspects of personalities of the characters involved.

      I haven't seen Mr. Bean, but that's how I feel about Seinfeld. It's like I'm supposed to find meanness and suffering funny. Obviously I'm in a tiny minority there, it was a highly rated show that lasted a decade and everyone I know thinks it's funny. I find it depressing. But if there was a reference to Seinfeld in a slashdot summary, I wouldn't jump in trying to get first post saying what a terrible show it was, even if I were a New Yorker and thought it made New Yorkers look like assholes. That's just trolling.

      Happy Birthday to her then. :)

      Thank you!