Although I disagree with Fox about cancelling the show, if they claim bad ratings I'll believe it. Most college students, myself included (and most people on a broadband connection for that matter) have access to file sharing programs like WinMX, Morpheus, etc. One of the neat thing about these programs is that you can download episodes of *gasp* Futurama, as well as the Simpsons, X-files, and other shows big in the/. community. So we've all got the latest episodes downloaded, why even bother turning on the TV? No commercials, we can watch episodes whenever we want, its a digital utopia. But FOX executives are probably looking at the TV ratings, seeing lowered ratings of our favorites (due to this), and canning the shows. The inherent problem here is, people are watching the shows, but not on TV.
From what I've seen, often times people in areas of authority (computer lab monitors, etc) don't understand technology well enough to implement anything innovative. Hell, they have a field day getting what we have to work. For example, our school network is to the point where if you were on floor 5 in a dorm hall, you'd have access to workgroups on floors 1-3 and 6, but not 4, and 4 would have access to workgroups on another dorm hall. This really gets annoying when you need to access an account on a school workgroup, and can't access it while the guy on the floor above you can.
Digressing a little bit, is there really a need to implement new technology? At least from what I've caught in the news, most of the stuff coming out these days are either upgrades to software schools should have anyways, or useless tacky crap (palm pilot update) that really is more suited for individual fetish than education as a whole. Web pages never being updated, annoying phones going off in class, perhaps money would be better spent showing people how to use the tools they already have instead of bringing in a truckload of more problems.
After reading through the Time leak and watching the keynote, there was one thing left that I was secretly hoping for. Wouldn't it have been cool if Apple had come up with some sort of connection port for the monitor, so that not only would it be on that hand/swivel thing, but you could also, say, push a little button at the top and the thing could pop off for easy storage? This feature would also allow for bigger monitors, or whatever else comes down in the next few decades. Imagine just being able to pop off the monitor and slide the computer in your desk drawer for safe-keeping.
The big problem with IMDB is that it's Internet based. The issue that comes with this is that of the audience of the Internet. Most of the people I know who I'd really consider "intellectuals" as far as ability to really rate a movie (or book, etc) goes tend not to really use computers much, except for typing papers and using email. For example, many of the professors I know at colleges use computers to write research papers, often to talk to students via email, and maybe to look up one or two things that don't already exist in the vast library of knowledge in their offices.
Now those who I'd imagine being, not quite on the other end of the scope but far enough to make a point, are those who see or read something and immediately need to talk to others about it. I'm referring to the people who will watch a movie and within five minutes hop onto IMDB (or Yahoo, etc), reading what other people have written about the movie before even coming to their own conclusions.
What are the other movies on the top ten? There's Citizen Kane and Casablance, both from the '40s (gathering ~30k votes). There are a few from the '70s (Godfather-44k, Star Wars-68k), and then the more modern ones (Memento-20k). With the exception of Memento, all these movies have been around a few years, and people have had time to think about them. To be quite honest, seeing a movie a dozen or more times can give quite a bit better impression of it then, say, seeing it on opening night.
Also, reiterating what some previous posts have stated, a lot of people who just saw LOTR might not have had a chance to see Casablanca or another, so how can they vote on it? This is, of course, one of the ways IMDB can be seen to be flawed and statistically skewed. But then, if people are rating movies (even new releases) on IMDB, that means they are at the site, which opens the door for them to "accidentally" stumble across an old classic they might not have known about. Maybe then they'll see that movie, and come back and rate it. And the more this happens, the more accurate the ratings become.
This also changes as a wider variety of audience sees the film. Many people I know (my parents, for instance) rarely go to the theatre, but if something looks good they'll rent it. Perhaps we'll get that vote, perhaps not, but its gonna be at least a few months (assuming LOTR doesn't stay in theatres for longer than that:p). But they're surely not going to rate it until they see it.
Now how long has LOTR been in the theatre? A bit over a week... given it's buildup hype, it might flag in a few dozen k votes. But the more votes there are, the more accurate the rating will be (it's called the "law of large numbers"). So let the wave of movie buffs vote on this for a few weeks, then vote on the next big movie; while they're busy voting on whatever, a whole new audience will begin voting-- perhaps a bit more thoroughly this time-- and LOTR will fall into it's rightful place.
The whole history of computers and technology in general has concentrated around making a more efficient and logical system. Why then.museum? At least IMHO, I think a.ref (for "reference") TLD would have been far more useful. Museum sites, as well as libraries, search engines, research facilities, and all sorts of other topics could be covered under it. As for the rest of them, ICAAN seriously needs to rethink how their decisions are going to affect the future of the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
And what are we to think when the neighborhood priest's device goes off whenever little Jimmy goes by?
Although I disagree with Fox about cancelling the show, if they claim bad ratings I'll believe it. Most college students, myself included (and most people on a broadband connection for that matter) have access to file sharing programs like WinMX, Morpheus, etc. One of the neat thing about these programs is that you can download episodes of *gasp* Futurama, as well as the Simpsons, X-files, and other shows big in the /. community. So we've all got the latest episodes downloaded, why even bother turning on the TV? No commercials, we can watch episodes whenever we want, its a digital utopia. But FOX executives are probably looking at the TV ratings, seeing lowered ratings of our favorites (due to this), and canning the shows. The inherent problem here is, people are watching the shows, but not on TV.
Digressing a little bit, is there really a need to implement new technology? At least from what I've caught in the news, most of the stuff coming out these days are either upgrades to software schools should have anyways, or useless tacky crap (palm pilot update) that really is more suited for individual fetish than education as a whole. Web pages never being updated, annoying phones going off in class, perhaps money would be better spent showing people how to use the tools they already have instead of bringing in a truckload of more problems.
After reading through the Time leak and watching the keynote, there was one thing left that I was secretly hoping for. Wouldn't it have been cool if Apple had come up with some sort of connection port for the monitor, so that not only would it be on that hand/swivel thing, but you could also, say, push a little button at the top and the thing could pop off for easy storage? This feature would also allow for bigger monitors, or whatever else comes down in the next few decades. Imagine just being able to pop off the monitor and slide the computer in your desk drawer for safe-keeping.
Now those who I'd imagine being, not quite on the other end of the scope but far enough to make a point, are those who see or read something and immediately need to talk to others about it. I'm referring to the people who will watch a movie and within five minutes hop onto IMDB (or Yahoo, etc), reading what other people have written about the movie before even coming to their own conclusions.
What are the other movies on the top ten? There's Citizen Kane and Casablance, both from the '40s (gathering ~30k votes). There are a few from the '70s (Godfather-44k, Star Wars-68k), and then the more modern ones (Memento-20k). With the exception of Memento, all these movies have been around a few years, and people have had time to think about them. To be quite honest, seeing a movie a dozen or more times can give quite a bit better impression of it then, say, seeing it on opening night.
Also, reiterating what some previous posts have stated, a lot of people who just saw LOTR might not have had a chance to see Casablanca or another, so how can they vote on it? This is, of course, one of the ways IMDB can be seen to be flawed and statistically skewed. But then, if people are rating movies (even new releases) on IMDB, that means they are at the site, which opens the door for them to "accidentally" stumble across an old classic they might not have known about. Maybe then they'll see that movie, and come back and rate it. And the more this happens, the more accurate the ratings become.
This also changes as a wider variety of audience sees the film. Many people I know (my parents, for instance) rarely go to the theatre, but if something looks good they'll rent it. Perhaps we'll get that vote, perhaps not, but its gonna be at least a few months (assuming LOTR doesn't stay in theatres for longer than that :p). But they're surely not going to rate it until they see it.
Now how long has LOTR been in the theatre? A bit over a week... given it's buildup hype, it might flag in a few dozen k votes. But the more votes there are, the more accurate the rating will be (it's called the "law of large numbers"). So let the wave of movie buffs vote on this for a few weeks, then vote on the next big movie; while they're busy voting on whatever, a whole new audience will begin voting-- perhaps a bit more thoroughly this time-- and LOTR will fall into it's rightful place.
The whole history of computers and technology in general has concentrated around making a more efficient and logical system. Why then .museum? At least IMHO, I think a .ref (for "reference") TLD would have been far more useful. Museum sites, as well as libraries, search engines, research facilities, and all sorts of other topics could be covered under it. As for the rest of them, ICAAN seriously needs to rethink how their decisions are going to affect the future of the Internet.