So... the BBC just said that Doctor Who is still alive and that there will be a Christmas special in 2026

 I say FORGET IT!

From the good ol' days when a Doctor Who Christmas special really MEANT something.

I shall properly preface this post by noting that when the franchise has gotten so bad that Disney+ has washed their hands free of it, you know things are dire and not apt to get better anytime soon.

The BBC announced today that Doctor Who is still viable somehow and that there will be a Christmas special next year.  But according to the article, Russell T. Davies is still in charge of the show.

Like I said, forget THAT!!

As long as Davies is calling the shots, this show is dead and it's not regenerating.  Although I will confess that the twisted little "id" creature within me is harboring morbid fascination about what the '26 Christmas special will entail.  Because the last time we saw anything of Doctor Who, Ncuti Gatwa's dress-wearing Doctor (either the Fourteenth or Fifteenth, does it really matter anymore?) transitioned to Rose Tyler, again played by Billie Piper.  It was a cheap stunt born out of desperation and all it did was paint the saga into a corner with no way out.

As I said last time that the subject of Doctor Who was brought up on this site, the series needs to go away for awhile.  Maybe a long while.  Like, five or ten years, much like the "wilderness years" between 1989 and 2005.  Then brought back with an ENTIRELY new showrunner and production team.  Have it be people who truly get Doctor Who and what has made this show so beloved.  Make sure that they're committed to characters and story first, WITHOUT any ideological agenda (which in my opinion is at the heart meat of what killed this show, Davies was determined that it would be a platform for his personal beliefs and unfortunately he wasn't the only one).  Have the rebooted series jettison or at least thoroughly retcon away all that "Timeless Child" bull$hit (I'm being polite) and establish that the Doctor is always intended to be a male character.  There is a dynamic in this show between the Doctor and his companions and that must NEVER be tampered with.  I think the Doctor can be portrayed by a woman, playing against gender, but it has to be someone special (I've always thought that Tilda Swinton would make a terrific Doctor).  Or at least do NOT have the Doctor wearing a kilt, or whatever the h-ll that was that Gatwa's "Doctor In Name Only" was dancing around in.

It sounds like extremely invasive surgery.  And it is.  It will even require some amputations.  But the subject is beyond repair by normal procedure.  Doctor Who is NOT coming back anywhere close to the stature it had twelve years ago at the height of the Matt Smith era, and even the Peter Capaldi period (which despite some problems I really did end up liking a lot), without VERY drastic measures being taken.  It can't stay on its present course and it's insanity to believe it can go any further.  The BBC must fire Davies, learn from its mistakes, and let the show rest for awhile, and start anew.

That's the only way to make sure that there will again be a Doctor to save the universe every Saturday for the children to enjoy watching.  And I would love to see that again too, for that matter.

Read More

Obama to control the Internet? Not likely...

The Intertubes are burning out today with reaction to news of a bill introduced into the United States Senate by Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia that would give the President the power "to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency."

In other words: Obama would take over the Internet. That's the chatter about it anyway.

Is such a thing even possible? Plausible? I'll suggest that it's more than okay to raise hell about the civil liberties aspect of such a notion, but in terms of technical capability I don't see how we should be anything more than cautiously alarmed about this. For one thing, the Internet was designed from the getgo to take a lickin' and keep on tickin' in the event of a catastrophic systemwide loss of communication (namely, nuclear war). It's too decentralized, far too distributed a network. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be a loss of some data traffic in the event that the occupant of the White House (whoever that might be) goes mad with power, but more likely than not, to paraphrase Princess Leia "the more they tighten their grip, the more systems will slip through their fingers."

Then there is what we have just seen happen in Iran: one of the most tightly-controlled regimes in the world. Even when that country's government tried to shut down all Internet traffic, people on the outside were busy setting up proxy servers and the like to keep the news, e-mails, photos and Twitter tweets of the post-election violence coming out to the rest of us. I'm apt to think that those of us in the United States would enjoy similar assistance should our own government try to put up the twenty-first century's version of the Berlin Wall.

Might anyone dare to purposefully halt the United States' Internet traffic and somehow manage to pull it off, they would subsequently be bringing down a huge chunk of the world's commercial economy in one fell swoop. Which I'm all too aware that some will claim that this would be one of the primary motives of such an act anyway...

But the biggest reason why I doubt Obama or any other President would seize overwhelming and absolute control of the Internet: it would most likely be the one thing that stirs the vast majority of Americans to storm Washington D.C. with torches, pitchforks, ropes and blistering-hot tar and proceed to break bad on damn near every elected official and bureaucrat in town. Threaten to take away people's Facebook and YouTube and Twitter and blogging and iTunes and online video gaming (the Gears of War players alone would raze D.C. into the ground) and porn and pirated music and movies and sports coverage and news and porn and political discussion and porn and everything else...

Who doesn't think that this would be the most politically suicidal act of modern American history?

If you wanna call your Congress-critter and tell him/her/it "hell no!" on this, then definitely do it. In fact, a call or written letter would be much better than an overly-convenient e-mail (trust me on this). Barrage the Capitol switchboard with angry but polite phone calls.

But in the meantime, be of good cheer: the Internet shouldn't be going away anytime soon :-)

Read More

Southeastern Conference bans social media at sports events

"No Twitter, Facebook, YouTube or TwitPic!" That's the dictate being sent to sports fans and students of Southeastern Conference member schools if they want to attend athletic events. Under its newly adopted media policy, the SEC has informed its schools that "Ticketed fans can't produce or disseminate (or aid in producing or disseminating) any material or information about the Event, including, but not limited to, any account, description, picture, video, audio, reproduction or other information concerning the Event."

It's effectively a ban on all so-called "social media". Per the new regs, a fan could get ejected from the premises simply for using his iPhone to take a picture of himself at a Gators football game and sending it to his friends on Facebook.

So what's behind this boneheaded move? The $3 billion contact with CBS for the next 15 years, giving that network exclusive media rights to cover SEC games. In other words: if you go to an SEC event, you and your cellphone are potential competition to a multi-billion dollar broadcast television corporation equipped with the latest cutting-edge high definition technology.

This isn't entirely unheard of, but for a collegiate athletic conference to crack down on the fans themselves is certainly new (and treacherous) ground to tread. Not to mention darn near unenforceable.

Read More

Rupert Murdoch to demand pay for ALL News Corp online content

Rupert Murdoch - who I will always think of as "the billionaire tyrant" from that episode of The Simpsons he did a cameo on - has pledged to begin charging for access to ALL of the content on websites run by his News Corp. That includes the websites for the Fox Network, FoxNews.com and others (perhaps even MySpace?).

Apparently the move is to recoup from more than $200 million in lost revenue for News Corp during the previous quarter, including significantly less profit from The Wall Street Journal, which Murdoch now owns.

This might become the biggest blunder yet in the newspaper industry's series of attempts to regain the ground it's lost to online media. That horse departed the barn about fifteen years ago, and it ain't coming back. The New York Times has already tried charging for access to its site: a plan that promptly went down in flames. Murdoch's scheme will likely meet a similar fate.

Read More

Bartertown? Rockingham County to mine landfill for methane to boost economy

It was reported earlier this week that officials here in Rockingham County, North Carolina have begun looking at the county landfill off N.C. 704 as a rich source of high-quality methane. The plan is to harvest the gas and use it for artistic uses - such as blacksmithing - and even for commercial purposes... such as "creating electricity". All of this is supposed to help boost the local economy.

Maybe we should turn control of Rockingham County over to this guy. He seems experienced...

"Who run Bartertown?"

"MASTER BLASTER RUNS BARTERTOWN!"

Come to think of it, the way things are going lately it might not be a bad time to pop those Mad Max movies in the DVD player. Might be a good brush-up for how lousy things are getting.

I still can't believe they're doing this with the landfill though. I mean, with all the cows in Rockingham County, that seems to be a more cost-effective source of retrievable methane, if they're hellbent on using the stuff.

Read More