one way to see changes in norms over time is to conduct a study in which the same test-takers take both an old and new version of the same test. Doing so confirms IQ gains over time. Some IQ tests, for example tests used for military draftees in NATO countries in Europe, report raw scores, and those also confirm a trend of rising scores over time.
Exactly... but my point is that that's how you'd expect things to work out, based on the set of people under the normalized curve reaching into more global societies. It's just the IQ test methodology bumping up against the global society. IQ tests are known to test how well you score on IQ tests, and also test how well the test makers plotted the questions to the selected curve. They are about as strong an indicator of intelligence as a shotgun clustering is of marksmanship. I say this as someone whose IQ score has continually risen over the decades from its starting low of 138:)
I'm not discounting the Flynn effect; I'm saying that the results of it are encoded right in to the original process of how IQ tests are created. The effect is exactly what you'd expect, and has nothing to do with actual intelligence shifts.
So why are IQ scores getting higher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)? The more we use our brain, the smarter our offspring get.
Show me an IQ test that has stayed the same over time -- I think you'll find that as people get better training to score well on IQ tests, IQ tests also shift to be more "fair" to the population in general. I remember administering a "traditional" IQ test from the 50's to someone a few year's back -- they scored abysmally because the test assumed they'd understand concepts and turns of phrase that have completely left our society today. IQ tests used to be very male WASP-centric. Now the same test has a wider population base that it can sample from, making more North Americans score higher than they used to.
(Older IQ tests assumed people had a basic sense of animal husbandry, farm crops [eg the difference between hay and wheat] and other non-urban things. Also, they assumed that a telephone was "dialled" via a rotor. These are just a few of the more obvious examples).
Oh yes, and because IQ tests are supposed to be normalized, a proper IQ test will have the same distribution over a population year-over-year. You can't measure an increase in intelligence with IQ.
As opposed to what? Bemoaning the fact that we used to be so happy in our ignorance?
You do understand that this finding makes biology as a science much harder?
Yes, well, unfortunately the truth doesn't care how easy you'd like life to be. Science is the pursuit of truth. Yes, the road ahead now looks a little more rubble-strewn, but when there's only one road, stopping to complain isn't going to speed the journey.
And the thing is, it's not like we haven't suspected things like this for a long time... they were talking about the possibility of inherited neural generation pathways 50 years ago. The only thing that's new is that we now have proof and a more clearly defined theory, so it can't be ignored as purely hypothetical.
Re:Spray-paint and bubble-gum!!?
on
R2-D2: Mall Cop
·
· Score: 1
While I appriciate your attempt, it's hardly the best you could do.
From the master:
"As laser-wielding robots home in on his body heat, MacGyver creates a fake heat signature by using magnets wrapped in burning paper. He opens several telephone handsets to get the magnets, and finds paper and matches in the science lab he is in. Once aflame, he throws one piece of burning paper, with a magnet wrapped inside, at each robot. The magnets stick to the metal of the robots. With each robot "tagged," they home in on each other and destroy one another." (e01s02)
Odd; I'll have to re-check s02e01; I don't remember that. What I *DO* know is that if the paper generates enough heat to fool the robots, it would also generate enough heat to cause the magnets to lose their magnetism. Rare earth magnets, maybe not -- but telephone headset magnets -- definitely.
Only problem is, Google, MS and Yahoo already started doing this for MANY countries (including the US and UK) years ago. This isn't anything new, other than the targets. The mechanism for doing this blocking is already in place for pedophile sites.
... while the old ones continues to operate with bypasses even a 12 year old can figure out.
Actually, we're talking about France. It's unlikely that the streaming services will adapt just to suit the French market, unless they're French streaming sites. More likely, people will stop watching the streaming services and move to consuming via Youtube (which yes, is still a streaming service) or TPB. Ordering Google to block Youtube isn't going to go over so well.
Everybody's every move being tracked in the name of lower premiums or children safety is downright scary.
What's worse: safe, conservative drivers opting in to this in order to prove that they're safe and get lower rates, or forcing safe drivers to subsidize the insurance of reckless drivers because the insurer has no way to distinguish between the two?
(I think the answer depends on other factors, like privacy controls, consumer protection, and system security.)
Of course, the insurer has great ways to distinguish between the two, so this is a false dichotomy. The entire business of the insurer is being able to distinguish between good risk and bad risk -- since insurance is an ongoing thing, insurance claims, vehicle types, age/gender, time since last claim, etc. are great indicators. On the flip side, being able to do driving proviling on a mass scale could be extremely useful for identifying good/bad driving practices and figuring out how well the various parts of different cars actually perform.
Actually, you made me think... cross this new product with the tech from a few days ago about the system that can identify you by your typing and mousing... I'd say everyone's driving style is pretty unique. A version of the lo-jack that could identify who was driving the vehicle and then set custom limits with alerts based on that would be pretty useful.
Still a huge potential for abuse, but there are uses too....
If enough people start putting in solar arrays and going off grid and or feeding back to the grid it will undermine the electric operators.
Delivered electricity costs might very well go way up for traditional customers. Distribution is a high fixed overhead. Either you sell enough generation or your really screw a certain groups of customers with high fixed minimum charges.
Don't misunderstand I am opposed to doing anything to discourage people from going off grid, installing solar or selling back to the grid. I am also against doing anything specific to encourage it. Government should just stay out.
But consider this their could come a day when having reliable electricity available at your home means paying very high monthly fees to be connected to a grid with fewer and few customers, or being able to invest and maintain an solar array and some kind of storage bank, be it kinetic, capacitance, or chemical batteries. That might create some haves and have nots out of what has become a pretty universal condition presently.
The next thing you know some prick like Obama is going to be arguing for an individual grid connection mandate; because its only affordable if we all participate.
Wait a minute... Arizona is finding that the energy companies can co-opt homeowners to help provide electricity to the grid, thus making them rich in energy but poor in income -- and the solution is to legislate away the problem of consumers producing electricity?
Meanwhile, you've got neighboring states that are always needing more energy. Why not sell the excess to them at a reasonable rate and recoup any losses from individuals? After all, the individuals are still part of the network, and are providing a resource they're already set up to distribute to others.
It's way past the "haves" and "have nots" time -- the current legislation shows that those already exist. This isn't even about redistribution of wealth -- it's about preventing EVERYONE from becoming more wealthy with a bit of ingenuity and forward-thinking.
And the best part is that if the individual users fail, they automatically become just another customer. It's about supply and demand.
The first Gulf War may have been under this budget, but a big part of the second war was to test out the new gadgets being developed for the US Military. There wasn't just one reason to invade; there were a bunch, and they just happened to align with an upswelling feeling of "protect us at all costs" that the military establishment couldn't resist. So I'd only attribute around $600bn to oil protection money (which, as a side effect, also had impact on foreign policy and financial stability, which are both things the government is actually supposed to be involved in at some level).
If solar is doing so great then why does it need subsidies? Thats what the GOP doesn't like, not that such a thing exists, but that the government creates distortions in the economy by picking winners before the race starts. Old school republicans and libertarians both distaste government intervention. Solar will eventually become cost effective without subsidies, lets wait for that to happen.
It needs subsidies because otherwise it can't compete with the traditional _subsidized_ power sources. If we dropped all the subsidies, then we'd be dealing with cost to entry barriers, spikes in production costs that would scare away active development, etc.
That said, the level of subsidy in the energy market has got significantly out of hand, where now the same energy is being subsidized at multiple places along the line from exploration through to delivery. It makes it near impossible to determine actual cost of different energy sources these days.
Test 1: 90.00 % of legit users remain. Test 2: 89.00 % of legit users remain. Test 3:88.75% of legit users remain.....
So if you set your threshold at some reasonable level, like 50% confidence, pretty much all the imposters will be blocked, while for legit use to change, you'd have to be remotely logging in over a laggy connection, dictating your commands to someone else to perform. There's still both FN and FP possibilities, but it's less than you'd get with biometric methods, for example.
I don't really get the hate for this stuff.. if you experience an unusual situation where it locks you out, I'm assuming there would be a way to type in your password, and possibly disable the system for the rest of the day.
I think it sounds like a pretty cool feature for very security conscious users/businesses. I tend to lock my machine manually when I leave my desk, but sometimes I forget. I do have a screensaver which locks the screen, but there is an exploitable window there. Since I'm an admin, anyone with access to my machine can access anything they want on our network. Even if I used an unprivileged network account by default, what if I had a privileged remote desktop window open and suddenly got called away from my desk on an urgent matter?
To be fair if someone has physical access to your office, and really wants access to your machine, they will find a way - but this system stops opportunists at least.
1) if there's an override, then anything other than casual use by someone else will not be prevented. 2) you're right about screen locking; I've been trying to figure out for years why there are so few bluetooth pairing apps for auto screen locking available. This is something that should be part of every OS in 2013. 3) If you're an admin, you should know that your machine should not be the keys to the network -- sure, given enough time, someone with full access to your machine might be able to gain some access to the network, but as the admin, you shouldn't be caching all your passwords, you should be using another authentication technique (smart card, paired phone, etc.) or at least have to enter in the master key for your password manager each time you want to retrieve a unique password for use (this assumes you have the standard 5 to 7 you use regularly memorized).
One question I have about this system... how long does it take to kick in? There are many activities that it doesn't take very many mouse/keystrokes to initiate, especially if the situation is opportunistic and the sensitive remote desktop is already logged in.
OK... this turned into more of a rant as to why known good security mechanisms that are available aren't implemented by default, but still....
What if I'm eating my lunch and only typing with one hand?
Then this is probably something you do regularly.
The thing that gets me though is, how does this deal with network lag? If you're doing remote login, it'll add all sorts of interference based on how responsive the connection is. Thus, if I went on a business trip to China and attempted to log in, would the system still recognize me as me?
Mouse use really is a very personal thing though; people tend to do very different things with their mice while typing.
Think of this not as a way of identifying an individual, but of screening out those who are obviously NOT that individual. This problem is _much_ easier to solve.
The article doesn't claim that BP did this, as the title in/. states, but rather mentions that BP has been accused of doing so to the Government Accountability Project. If the claim were true it doesn't seem to be a "smart" strategy for BP and somewhat flies in the face of their advertisement campaign and the amount of money they agreed to pay out. They might be stupid enough to cause a gigantic environmental disaster but are they stupid enough to be behind this?
Depends upon what you mean by "behind" -- likely, they paid the "image management firm" to "manage their image" -- and the firm they hired used these techniques when the standard ones weren't enough. I remember how fast BP was scrambling at the time; likely they hired the first firm that came recommended with good results and didn't take the time to do due diligence, as by then it would've been too late for their image.
How do you connect it without hacking a usb plug just like they're selling or otherwise altering your cable?
The way it's always been done -- using probes. They look like long needles, have hand grips, and come with most meters. Some even come with a number of detachable tips to probe varying types of connections. You can even get some with a dedicated USB adapter these days, although that's not really needed and is more of a gimmick.
Driving when you're clearly drunk is always a bad idea. But someone who's right on the limit: only had a couple of beers, and one of them turned out to be a higher strength than they thought: he's a lot less of a danger than half the people on the road anyway. I agree that drink driving is senselessly taking lives of people who would still be alive is drunks were more responsible, but heavy-handed enforcement of arbitrary restrictions doesn't help anyone.
I disagree with this; if someone is impaired, they're impaired, whether they realize it or not.
However, someone who has just eaten a lemon-poppy-seed muffin will test positive to many of these tests without having their driving impaired in any way.
Yes. If they went the iPhone route, they could have a large third party custom attachment industry come out of this, AND sell a small set of custom moldings themselves for marked up prices -- and sell it with the default. I bet you'd get a lot of easy revenue out of that; and since they've already done the testing, they know exactly what moldings to make themselves. File a patent and make a smart bus for add-on electronics:)
The corpse of another fond childhood memory to be poked and prodded over - and ultimately ruined - by deluded old men. Much of Monty Python's appeal stemmed from poking fun at the establishment, at ridiculing societal norms. Now they are part of the establishment.
Maybe this will be something completely different, and they'll be poking fun at the upcoming generation instead?
I was just thinking this last night, in reference to the TV show The Incredible Hulk. Both my wife and I watched it as kids, but all we can remember are the exciting bits (like the hurricane episode) and have forgotten most of the story lines.
It's now in the Netflix queue.
No, that's something completely different -- I went back and watched some of those shows, and realized that the first time I watched it, I never even noticed the story lines. That's not something you usually become aware of until you're older, which is why many shows didn't have much story line to begin with. I still remember the story line of the Hulk's pilot episode, but none of the plots from once the show actually started rolling. Let me know if you find any.
Slashdot Mirror
From the wikipedia article on the Flynn effect:
Exactly... but my point is that that's how you'd expect things to work out, based on the set of people under the normalized curve reaching into more global societies. It's just the IQ test methodology bumping up against the global society. IQ tests are known to test how well you score on IQ tests, and also test how well the test makers plotted the questions to the selected curve. They are about as strong an indicator of intelligence as a shotgun clustering is of marksmanship. I say this as someone whose IQ score has continually risen over the decades from its starting low of 138 :)
I'm not discounting the Flynn effect; I'm saying that the results of it are encoded right in to the original process of how IQ tests are created. The effect is exactly what you'd expect, and has nothing to do with actual intelligence shifts.
So why are IQ scores getting higher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)? The more we use our brain, the smarter our offspring get.
Show me an IQ test that has stayed the same over time -- I think you'll find that as people get better training to score well on IQ tests, IQ tests also shift to be more "fair" to the population in general. I remember administering a "traditional" IQ test from the 50's to someone a few year's back -- they scored abysmally because the test assumed they'd understand concepts and turns of phrase that have completely left our society today. IQ tests used to be very male WASP-centric. Now the same test has a wider population base that it can sample from, making more North Americans score higher than they used to.
(Older IQ tests assumed people had a basic sense of animal husbandry, farm crops [eg the difference between hay and wheat] and other non-urban things. Also, they assumed that a telephone was "dialled" via a rotor. These are just a few of the more obvious examples).
Oh yes, and because IQ tests are supposed to be normalized, a proper IQ test will have the same distribution over a population year-over-year. You can't measure an increase in intelligence with IQ.
Celebrating?
As opposed to what? Bemoaning the fact that we used to be so happy in our ignorance?
You do understand that this finding makes biology as a science much harder?
Yes, well, unfortunately the truth doesn't care how easy you'd like life to be. Science is the pursuit of truth. Yes, the road ahead now looks a little more rubble-strewn, but when there's only one road, stopping to complain isn't going to speed the journey.
And the thing is, it's not like we haven't suspected things like this for a long time... they were talking about the possibility of inherited neural generation pathways 50 years ago. The only thing that's new is that we now have proof and a more clearly defined theory, so it can't be ignored as purely hypothetical.
While I appriciate your attempt, it's hardly the best you could do.
From the master:
"As laser-wielding robots home in on his body heat, MacGyver creates a fake heat signature by using magnets wrapped in burning paper. He opens several telephone handsets to get the magnets, and finds paper and matches in the science lab he is in. Once aflame, he throws one piece of burning paper, with a magnet wrapped inside, at each robot. The magnets stick to the metal of the robots. With each robot "tagged," they home in on each other and destroy one another." (e01s02)
Odd; I'll have to re-check s02e01; I don't remember that. What I *DO* know is that if the paper generates enough heat to fool the robots, it would also generate enough heat to cause the magnets to lose their magnetism. Rare earth magnets, maybe not -- but telephone headset magnets -- definitely.
Only problem is, Google, MS and Yahoo already started doing this for MANY countries (including the US and UK) years ago. This isn't anything new, other than the targets. The mechanism for doing this blocking is already in place for pedophile sites.
... while the old ones continues to operate with bypasses even a 12 year old can figure out.
Actually, we're talking about France. It's unlikely that the streaming services will adapt just to suit the French market, unless they're French streaming sites. More likely, people will stop watching the streaming services and move to consuming via Youtube (which yes, is still a streaming service) or TPB. Ordering Google to block Youtube isn't going to go over so well.
here
What's worse: safe, conservative drivers opting in to this in order to prove that they're safe and get lower rates, or forcing safe drivers to subsidize the insurance of reckless drivers because the insurer has no way to distinguish between the two?
(I think the answer depends on other factors, like privacy controls, consumer protection, and system security.)
Of course, the insurer has great ways to distinguish between the two, so this is a false dichotomy. The entire business of the insurer is being able to distinguish between good risk and bad risk -- since insurance is an ongoing thing, insurance claims, vehicle types, age/gender, time since last claim, etc. are great indicators. On the flip side, being able to do driving proviling on a mass scale could be extremely useful for identifying good/bad driving practices and figuring out how well the various parts of different cars actually perform.
Actually, you made me think... cross this new product with the tech from a few days ago about the system that can identify you by your typing and mousing... I'd say everyone's driving style is pretty unique. A version of the lo-jack that could identify who was driving the vehicle and then set custom limits with alerts based on that would be pretty useful.
Still a huge potential for abuse, but there are uses too....
If enough people start putting in solar arrays and going off grid and or feeding back to the grid it will undermine the electric operators.
Delivered electricity costs might very well go way up for traditional customers. Distribution is a high fixed overhead. Either you sell enough generation or your really screw a certain groups of customers with high fixed minimum charges.
Don't misunderstand I am opposed to doing anything to discourage people from going off grid, installing solar or selling back to the grid. I am also against doing anything specific to encourage it. Government should just stay out.
But consider this their could come a day when having reliable electricity available at your home means paying very high monthly fees to be connected to a grid with fewer and few customers, or being able to invest and maintain an solar array and some kind of storage bank, be it kinetic, capacitance, or chemical batteries. That might create some haves and have nots out of what has become a pretty universal condition presently.
The next thing you know some prick like Obama is going to be arguing for an individual grid connection mandate; because its only affordable if we all participate.
Wait a minute... Arizona is finding that the energy companies can co-opt homeowners to help provide electricity to the grid, thus making them rich in energy but poor in income -- and the solution is to legislate away the problem of consumers producing electricity?
Meanwhile, you've got neighboring states that are always needing more energy. Why not sell the excess to them at a reasonable rate and recoup any losses from individuals? After all, the individuals are still part of the network, and are providing a resource they're already set up to distribute to others.
It's way past the "haves" and "have nots" time -- the current legislation shows that those already exist. This isn't even about redistribution of wealth -- it's about preventing EVERYONE from becoming more wealthy with a bit of ingenuity and forward-thinking.
And the best part is that if the individual users fail, they automatically become just another customer. It's about supply and demand.
The first Gulf War may have been under this budget, but a big part of the second war was to test out the new gadgets being developed for the US Military. There wasn't just one reason to invade; there were a bunch, and they just happened to align with an upswelling feeling of "protect us at all costs" that the military establishment couldn't resist. So I'd only attribute around $600bn to oil protection money (which, as a side effect, also had impact on foreign policy and financial stability, which are both things the government is actually supposed to be involved in at some level).
If solar is doing so great then why does it need subsidies? Thats what the GOP doesn't like, not that such a thing exists, but that the government creates distortions in the economy by picking winners before the race starts. Old school republicans and libertarians both distaste government intervention. Solar will eventually become cost effective without subsidies, lets wait for that to happen.
It needs subsidies because otherwise it can't compete with the traditional _subsidized_ power sources. If we dropped all the subsidies, then we'd be dealing with cost to entry barriers, spikes in production costs that would scare away active development, etc.
That said, the level of subsidy in the energy market has got significantly out of hand, where now the same energy is being subsidized at multiple places along the line from exploration through to delivery. It makes it near impossible to determine actual cost of different energy sources these days.
Their other products phone home because they are really in the business of selling online services, not network hardware.
I always just had issues with their name... does their network hardware go up and down all the time?
And to apply that test to FPs:
Test 1: 90.00 % of legit users remain. ....
Test 2: 89.00 % of legit users remain.
Test 3:88.75% of legit users remain.
So if you set your threshold at some reasonable level, like 50% confidence, pretty much all the imposters will be blocked, while for legit use to change, you'd have to be remotely logging in over a laggy connection, dictating your commands to someone else to perform. There's still both FN and FP possibilities, but it's less than you'd get with biometric methods, for example.
once in 200 seconds it will lock you out for a second.
seriously speaking, I guess it depends on the length of the analyzing window and they chose the best stat they had.
but you wouldn't mind re-typing your password(in exact same manner and delays) evey 3 minutes now would you?
I seriously doubt the system can guess with 99.5% accuracy which of the users is using the system..
It doesn't need to -- it needs to guess with 70% accuracy when the logged in user matches someone other than the intended user.
I don't really get the hate for this stuff.. if you experience an unusual situation where it locks you out, I'm assuming there would be a way to type in your password, and possibly disable the system for the rest of the day.
I think it sounds like a pretty cool feature for very security conscious users/businesses. I tend to lock my machine manually when I leave my desk, but sometimes I forget. I do have a screensaver which locks the screen, but there is an exploitable window there. Since I'm an admin, anyone with access to my machine can access anything they want on our network. Even if I used an unprivileged network account by default, what if I had a privileged remote desktop window open and suddenly got called away from my desk on an urgent matter?
To be fair if someone has physical access to your office, and really wants access to your machine, they will find a way - but this system stops opportunists at least.
1) if there's an override, then anything other than casual use by someone else will not be prevented.
2) you're right about screen locking; I've been trying to figure out for years why there are so few bluetooth pairing apps for auto screen locking available. This is something that should be part of every OS in 2013.
3) If you're an admin, you should know that your machine should not be the keys to the network -- sure, given enough time, someone with full access to your machine might be able to gain some access to the network, but as the admin, you shouldn't be caching all your passwords, you should be using another authentication technique (smart card, paired phone, etc.) or at least have to enter in the master key for your password manager each time you want to retrieve a unique password for use (this assumes you have the standard 5 to 7 you use regularly memorized).
One question I have about this system... how long does it take to kick in? There are many activities that it doesn't take very many mouse/keystrokes to initiate, especially if the situation is opportunistic and the sensitive remote desktop is already logged in.
OK... this turned into more of a rant as to why known good security mechanisms that are available aren't implemented by default, but still....
What if I'm eating my lunch and only typing with one hand?
Then this is probably something you do regularly.
The thing that gets me though is, how does this deal with network lag? If you're doing remote login, it'll add all sorts of interference based on how responsive the connection is. Thus, if I went on a business trip to China and attempted to log in, would the system still recognize me as me?
Mouse use really is a very personal thing though; people tend to do very different things with their mice while typing.
Think of this not as a way of identifying an individual, but of screening out those who are obviously NOT that individual. This problem is _much_ easier to solve.
The article doesn't claim that BP did this, as the title in /. states, but rather mentions that BP has been accused of doing so to the Government Accountability Project. If the claim were true it doesn't seem to be a "smart" strategy for BP and somewhat flies in the face of their advertisement campaign and the amount of money they agreed to pay out. They might be stupid enough to cause a gigantic environmental disaster but are they stupid enough to be behind this?
Depends upon what you mean by "behind" -- likely, they paid the "image management firm" to "manage their image" -- and the firm they hired used these techniques when the standard ones weren't enough. I remember how fast BP was scrambling at the time; likely they hired the first firm that came recommended with good results and didn't take the time to do due diligence, as by then it would've been too late for their image.
"Reputation managers" (Aka professional lairs) are everywhere. You'll see a lot of them here on slashdot.
Yeah .. its been a while since I saw them here, but Natalie Portman must have hired them by the dozen.
Nah; they were hired by http://www.srgtc.in/
How do you connect it without hacking a usb plug just like they're selling or otherwise altering your cable?
The way it's always been done -- using probes. They look like long needles, have hand grips, and come with most meters. Some even come with a number of detachable tips to probe varying types of connections. You can even get some with a dedicated USB adapter these days, although that's not really needed and is more of a gimmick.
Driving when you're clearly drunk is always a bad idea. But someone who's right on the limit: only had a couple of beers, and one of them turned out to be a higher strength than they thought: he's a lot less of a danger than half the people on the road anyway. I agree that drink driving is senselessly taking lives of people who would still be alive is drunks were more responsible, but heavy-handed enforcement of arbitrary restrictions doesn't help anyone.
I disagree with this; if someone is impaired, they're impaired, whether they realize it or not.
However, someone who has just eaten a lemon-poppy-seed muffin will test positive to many of these tests without having their driving impaired in any way.
Yes. If they went the iPhone route, they could have a large third party custom attachment industry come out of this, AND sell a small set of custom moldings themselves for marked up prices -- and sell it with the default. I bet you'd get a lot of easy revenue out of that; and since they've already done the testing, they know exactly what moldings to make themselves. File a patent and make a smart bus for add-on electronics :)
The corpse of another fond childhood memory to be poked and prodded over - and ultimately ruined - by deluded old men. Much of Monty Python's appeal stemmed from poking fun at the establishment, at ridiculing societal norms. Now they are part of the establishment.
Maybe this will be something completely different, and they'll be poking fun at the upcoming generation instead?
I was just thinking this last night, in reference to the TV show The Incredible Hulk. Both my wife and I watched it as kids, but all we can remember are the exciting bits (like the hurricane episode) and have forgotten most of the story lines.
It's now in the Netflix queue.
No, that's something completely different -- I went back and watched some of those shows, and realized that the first time I watched it, I never even noticed the story lines. That's not something you usually become aware of until you're older, which is why many shows didn't have much story line to begin with. I still remember the story line of the Hulk's pilot episode, but none of the plots from once the show actually started rolling. Let me know if you find any.
We need a karma-neutral "whoosh" modifier for when the responder to a joke is about 5 steps behind on the discussion thread....