NBC Is Run By Morons

I feel like I do nothing but pick on NBC. Then other times I feel like I HAVE NO CHOICE.

The latest foul up? Tonight's closing ceremonies for the Winter Olympics was cut out so that we could get a preview of the "post-Jay Leno Show experiment" shows with the first one being The Marriage Ref. Created by Jerry Seinfeld, it's part of several of their new shows that they are launching to try to recover.

I know the business structure. Have a big event (like the Olympic Ceremonies) and have a new show premiere after. It's always done after the Super Bowl. Survivor. Undercover Boss. I get it. It makes sense.

HOWEVER -- in this instance, NBC "went to commercial" during the ceremonies, and then came back with the beginning of The Marriage Ref. No word of where the ceremonies went. I don't understand how that happens. NBC had been promoting the event with acts like Avril Lavigne and Nickelback - not great draws for anyone over 14 or with a brain cell.

So besides that no one really wants to watch these acts - how can NBC possibly promote a show and then NOT SHOW THEM PERFORM. What's worse, they don't announce that they're cutting out. And by the way, Marriage Ref, from the few minutes I watched, looked awful. It was like Chelsea Lately with bigger named celebrities. Forced jokes in ridiculous scenarios. NBC was desperate for a show and was hoping Seinfeld's name would get attention.

I'm seriously doubting everything NBC does. It's awful. I know I posted last time hoping that Comcast can fix them. But I really do. After Jay Leno disappears. Can't wait for his premiere tomorrow. That previous sentence was 100% sarcasm.

I miss you Conan.

Spying on Students - Webcam Privacy

A live feed of what I'm doing. You caught me.

Over the weekend, a story launched regarding high-school teachers accessing the built-in camera of students laptops. This was a big deal to me for two reasons: A) the morality/legality of spying on students and B) I grew up in the school district with which this situation has developed: Lower Merion. Had I attended public high school I would have gone to Lower Merion High School. Instead I attended the lovely Saint Joseph's Preparatory School.

So aside from my personal connection to the school district, this is a HUGE case that will set the tone for technology/privacy in schools for quite a while (until this technology is somehow enhanced even further, setting entirely new rules.)

Clearly, the school district messed up. They had good intentions - if a laptop was lost or stolen, they would be able to identify the user (supposedly) and then give the picture to police. While it sounds good, the school district should have informed the students and parents.

But THEN the issue is that they used it on a current student who they "suspected" was doing "inappropriate" things with a school-issued laptop. Does anyone wonder how they got this "suspicion" anyway? What exactly gave it away? Did they spy on him before hand? Apparently they "caught" him doing whatever it was (one can only imagine - but what do you expect from a teenager when there's so much smut easily available on the internet - and the SCHOOL PROVIDED A GATEWAY TO IT BY PROVIDING THE COMPUTER.)

I think LMSD should be concerned over how their laptops are being used - but could do so more effectively. Because they are school-issued, I wouldn't find it a problem for LMSD to have access to the computer remotely to access files/web history etc, but not the webcam. That's the most ridiculous part. It's like child pornography. I'm sure there is some creepy teacher who would love to see what one of their students is doing at all points in time - and that's NOT okay. That's when it crosses the border from ensuring the integrity of your machines to stalking. Catching this boy doing whatever "inappropriate" is child pornography, and the school district should be sued for that as well.

I would almost expect all school-issued (or computers issued by employers) would haves some sort of monitoring system. They need to make sure that their machines are being used for appropriate, related items. I would think it would be in some sort of contract between the supplier and the user. That just seems to make the most logical sense to me. The webcam doesn't make sense to me though. People use their computer all the time - they may have ridiculous outfits on or nothing on at all - and that's up to them in the privacy of their own home. Don't spy on how I look, spy on what I'm looking at - but tell me that you'll be doing it.

My other concern is that Lower Merion is pretty rich. Like, really rich. I bet almost 80% of the student base has access to a computer at home, and I would also go to say that over 50% have their own computer. Why do they need one from school? I haven't been keeping up with technological advancements in secondary education, but is it truly necessary for every student to have a school issued laptop? Can't the school district have laptops that they keep at school? Or get a computer on a need basis (although in this economy, who will say no to a tax-paid computer?)

In doing the math, Lower Merion School District has roughly 2,500 students in its two high schools. By issuing them a $999 MacBook (assuming it's the basic model) we are looking at a $2.49 million price tag. I'm sure that Apple has some sort of school distribution service that makes the machines cheaper, but I'm sure it was still a hefty price. THOSE ARE MY TAX DOLLARS AT WORK. AND THEY PROBABLY GET NEW COMPUTERS EVERY 3 YEARS. While I am pro-Apple products, is that what students need? Or could they "survive" off of the cheaper Dell/HP/Compaq etc ? They probably don't need the built-in camera anyway (which would have prevented this whole situation.)

As I said, this case will be a big deal. I think it could change the landscape of how computers are used in the classroom (and by employers.) It will be interesting to see how things play out, but I can't believe how this was issue even came to the forefront - LMSD should have had a moral brain in their head and thought about how this technology could be used for "safety", there's also A LOT of potential for negative use. I hope it was worth it

NBC Drops The Ball Again

Last night, NBC failed to nationally televise one of the Winter Olympic events that EVERYONE wants to see: USA vs Canada in Men's Hockey. Instead, they passed it off to their sister station, MSNBC. Most cable outlets do not carry MSNBC in High Definition. HD helps enhance the quality of sporting events, most specifically hockey, because it allows more vision of the ice, creating a more pleasurable viewing experience.



The game was awesome, and quite possibly will be the best hockey game of the year (knock on wood.) It had everything exciting about hockey; great players, great plays, intense, drama ridden moments. Those moments where you are so nervous that the puck could trickle in at any point in time and change the entire face of the game.

It's events like this that make hockey great - and almost finally putting it back on the national map after a couple year hiatus from that crippling lock out.

The focus of this post isn't all about the game though - it's about how NBC execs yet again messed up a perfect ratings opportunity. Last night, my understanding of what was on National NBC consisted of: Ice Dancing, Men's Super Combined (consisting of Bode Miller's gold medal run,) probably Bobsled and either Curling or Speed Skating. The only event that warranted our attention was Bode Miller's run.

So the alternative to how NBC could have solved this problem? A) Show the hockey game on NBC and during the intermissions, show ice dance/bob sled whatever, then afterward, around 10PM, show the Super Combined. It would of boosted NBC's ratings without a doubt.

I know why NBC didn't broadcast it nationally. International Hockey has nearly zero commercials during the game, similar to soccer. This obviously inhibits NBC's advertising dollars. Although most games on MSNBC are "brought to you with limited commercial interruption" by X. They assumed people would rather watch Ice Dancing. Who would? There was such an outcry on Twitter that "NBC" was a higher trending topic than "Team USA" or "Team Canada." Most of the tweets were rants about how dumb NBC was for not having MSNBC HD available enough places while also not having it national. There's still some people without cable who couldn't of watched the game.

From NBC's perspective though, as the sole national broadcaster of NHL games (I'm not counting Versus) - wouldn't it make sense for them to broadcast a hockey game and try and boost the ratings for a sport they broadcast? It's only going to be another 2 weeks until the NHL is back on NBC, and I would think that they need to try to milk the sport as much as possible - even if that means losing $$$ right now, they may make more money - consistently - later down the line for their weekend/playoff games. I guess I'm just not a businessman and don't know what sports draw which ratings, but it doesn't make sense to me.

It's just become too easy to make fun of NBC these days. What a fall from grace for them. From being the original and having those legendary shows like Seinfeld and Cheers to be the idiots that approve of The Jay Leno Show and The Biggest Loser but cancel Southland and Conan O'Brien. Unbeleiveable. Good luck Comcast!

Tiger Speaks Tomorrow

Tomorrow at 11 AM the Tiger Woods scandal goes to an entire new level. After 3 months of settling down, he's coming "back" to make a statement at a press conference. There will be no questions, just a statement. Already everyone is going insane. TMZ is reporting that he'll show up in a Black SUV - WHO CARES WHAT CARE HE DRIVES.

The reality is that this story shouldn't be as big as it is. Infidelity is unfortunately all too common in our society, and just because the biggest athlete in the game isn't as innocent as we thought he was should not create this much panic.

Tiger doesn't owe us anything. He owes his wife, child, and family something. By something I mean more than half of his earnings, cause money can't fix a broken home. I mean an apology and a stern commitment to either better himself for his family or to remove himself from the situation as the mature thing to do. If he can't handle being married that's fine - but don't drag Elin through anymore - if she's willing to accept him back.

Whatever Tiger actually ends up saying tomorrow, it's going to cause a ruckus. He could announce he is coming back X date, and it'll be a big deal. He could say he's sorry, he's not sorry, he's this, he's that. It doesn't matter. We're so caught up in this debacle that we want ANYTHING. We're vultures waiting to feast on Tiger's scandal.

It's really getting sickening. Although I want to know what he has to say, I primarily want to know when he is coming back to the game - which is most important to me and the PGA Tour. While I don't think he should be rushed - he clearly has to figure out his family situation first - it's important for Tiger to get back to doing what Tiger does.

I hope tomorrow is a full admission. Let everything out. Get it out there. He's not allowing questions from reporters, so it'll make things more definite (PS - dumb or smart move by his PR team? I say smart given the amount of media presence that would be there - control the circus.) Let the news settle, come back to golf in X months. The selfish Tiger fanatic in my wants him to come back the week before the Masters to play in the Torrey Pines tournament, setting him up for the Masters and a potential big year for Tiger. But that's me being selfish.

What's still important though is getting Tiger's life together. If his family is too chaotic, there's a chance his golf will suffer, making the game and his life that much harder for him. I wish him the best, and a quick recovery back to the sport that made him famous.

LOST - NO MORE QUESTIONS ?

Spoiler. Spoiler. Blah I get tired of saying it.

Okay so LOST just ended and it was so awesome I had to write about it immediately. Prepare for a typical scattered post as I try to gather my thoughts.

1) THE NUMBERS

So the numbers actually DO have a purpose - sort of. Somehow these specific numbers connect to each of the people remaining from 815 - EXCEPT KATE OR CLAIRE. It's possible Claire was removed because she is dead/infected/sick/pick your word. That doesn't explain no listing for Kate - unless she was crossed out. Maybe she's not a "candidate" she's just a random girl. Or maybe she was already dead. Maybe Jacob visited all of the survivors pre-crash, but we only see those few. In trying to focus on the story while observing the room, I could of swore I saw Rutherford (for Shannon or Boone) inscribed, so Jacob could had listed everyone originally. Why wasn't Kate on the list? Is this technically Jacob's list? Can they not die (putting more emphasis on Sayid - although Locke is dead.)

HOW DO THE NUMBERS CONNECT TO THE SWAN - "THE NUMBERS"

My concern is maybe that Smoke Locke isn't being totally truthful. Why would Jacob come all the way down here when he had the Cabin/Statue? Maybe it's Smokey's list. Clearly the pendulum could of been for either of them. The concept of Jacob's ladder also could apply here.

Also though, we've been dealing with Jacob for so long we assume he's the good superpower. He's also white in the light vs black literary device (so we think.)

2) SMOKEY/NEMESIS

My gut tells me that he's still trying to get into the Temple. He needs someone to get past the ash so he can get in there and kill everyone. Right now thats Sawyer - a broken man desperate for answers. That's how they can get off the island "together." Sawyer helps Smokey, Smokey either kills him or lets him go, and Smokey is free to rule the island (or worse.) He's playing the part of the liberator by talking to Richard as if he's been enslaved by Jacob without any real knowledge for of what's going on. I'm sure Jacob told Richard whatever Richard needed to know.

BUT Smokey cheated. He technically killed Jacob by pushing him into the fire. There's a chance Jacob may not of died by being stabbed from Ben. That's where that boy comes in - who JUST HAS TO BE AARON. HAS TO BE. Because Smokey cheated, Jacob can rise again, or some other power (maybe one of the candidates - also remember Lapedis is a candidate too) can become the new Jacob to put Smokey back in his place. Maybe it's Aaron - providing him more of a purpose. It's interesting that Smokey has something he's scared of - and that he doesn't just transform to take him out. Maybe a power higher than Jacob/Smokey. Maybe Aaron is a reincarnation of Jacob, which was the purpose of allowing him to be born.

TO NOTE: Alpert couldn't see the kid. Sawyer could. Alpert probably isn't a candidate.

But does the Island need a new Jacob? Was Smokey lying in saying this Island didn't need anything? Is that what we see in the "sideways" time line - a world where the island doesn't 'exist' ? It's definitely possible, but I have my doubts about Smokey.

3) INTERESTING SIDEWAYS TIME LINE NOTES

-Hurley's doing great - different

-Rose still has cancer but she's loving life
-How can Rose and Hurley be on the same plane if Hurley is her boss? Wouldn't Hurley notice?

-LOCKE IS WITH HELEN - that's a huge change, but he's still depressed as ever.

-Locke as a teacher and him saying "John Locke - Substitute" is an interesting - but definitely serves as a metaphor - for being Smokey's Substitute - and potentially could have been Jacob's as a candidate. The writers are too smart.

-Also of note for Locke is that Helen mentioned his father attending the wedding. Meaning that they probably are on better terms than they were on the original time line. Meaning that Locke was paralyzed by other means.

-BEN AS A EUROPEAN HISTORY TEACHER - interesting. If he was Egyptian history I would have died. What does this sideways time line have to do with his rivalry with Widmore - if that even exists with everything else going on)

-SIDE NOTE FOR BEN --> By Ben being off the Island, that means that the Island had been underwater PRE-Dharma. Here's why: Ben in 1977 was last seen at the Temple, being healed from Sayid shooting him. So, were the bomb to go off, it would have killed him and everyone else. Ethan from last episode is fine because he would have been evacuated on the sub. Ben was not on the sub - as far as we know of course.

-Did anyone else think that the kid that Locke grabbed was going to be Walt? Obviously they can't capture Walt in 2004 form, but that would of made the sideways time lines that much more unbelievable.

I can't figure out if the sideways time line is to prove anything outside of how their lives would have been without the island - but why did some people have different pre-island experiences? Why is Hurley not cursed? Kate may be innocent for whatever she did? There's a lot of questions still left to be answered.

I think I read where Damon & Carlton are working towards proving that the lives of everyone on the island was going to be linked regardless of the events of the island - but was it because of the island?

4) Illana

She had to pick up those ashes for a reason. There must be some connection. Maybe they can reincarnate Jacob. Maybe it's to prove it to Dogen. I can't be sure, but there's definitely a connection. We still don't know how she knows about Jacob/Island/Temple or any of that.

PS REALLY CAN'T WAIT FOR JIN AND SUN TO GET BACK TOGETHER SO THAT CAN STOP BEING A STORYLINE.

Overall though this episode was the best of the season. I'm back on board the LOST train and will have a long 7 days until next week's episode.