Talk:This Week in Tech

À

Untitled

"to prevent copyright infringement, the show was referred to as ROTSS"

Surely this is wrong! Copyrights don't protect titles of protected works, at least not in the USA.

It's a matter of potential TRADEMARK infringement, isn't it?

Yes, it definately should be. Article's changed. --Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

No, you're right copyrights in USA don't protect titles. But, Leo explained on a TWiT episode that he just agreed to change it although, in hindsight, he could have told them to go and screw themselves. In essence, I suppose he agreed to cease and desist even though he didn't have to because it was still his legal right to use the title. I forgot which episode I heard him mention this. I think it was one in which they were discussing how Monster Cable keeps trying to sue everybody and their mother for similar reasons. 67.183.122.227 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)La-Tonia Denise Willis

More organization?

It seems to me like everything is just clumped together into one article. Should we have headings for things such as "History" (started at MaxExpo), "Show Title" (the contest and all), "Production" (they used Skype), and "Future"? I admit these will be short categories, but I think it's safe to assume they will ultimately expand, and this will give us better organization now, so we don't run into problems later. --Oreckel 22:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I split the article into heading and filled them up a little more. --taestell 03:11, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Nice - that's much better. --Oreckel 19:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Show notes?

Would it be too much to put show notes (a quick sentance or so) about each episode? --taestell 02:24, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Probably a little overkill... Salvag 03:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

That's what I thought... maybe I'll create a seperate website for that info. Thanks, taestell 19:57, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Post here (or email me) when you finish that - I'd be interested in reading it. :) --Oreckel 01:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it's Taestell's site, but there's TWiTnotes.com.—Sixteen Left 29 June 2005 22:27 (UTC)

No, it's not mine. I have been debating weather or not to put up a site of my own, now that Leo is putting detailed summaries of each episode on the official site. --taestell June 30, 2005 02:38 (UTC)

Sarah Norton...

"Special guests have included...Sarah Norton...".

Wow, clever :D. Haven't listened to the 5th podcast but listen to the 1st podcast and go to the 22 minute part. That's pretty much all you really hear about Sarah Norton, and it's nothing related to TWiT or anything remotely related to tech. --Bash 05:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Sarah also appears in the pilot episode (aka "Episode 0"). --taestell 20:25, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, heard it. Well, I'll guess I can consider her as a special guest, but still she only says like a couple of lines. --Bash 21:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

If anyone else is like me—wondering where episode zero is—the Torrent's right here. (Hey, maybe it'll come in handy for someone....)—Sixteen Left 30 June 2005 17:18 (UTC)

Weird sentence

This Week in Tech was chosen, based on one listener's suggestion, This Week in Geek.

So is it "in Tech" or "in Geek"? Were they both based on listeners' suggestions? Or what? This sentence is incredibly unclear. ✈ James C. 14:56, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Nevermind, I get it. Fixed sentence. ✈ James C. 15:02, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

You fixed it, but got the facts wrong. Both ...Tech and ...Geek were listener suggestions. Geek was hands-down the popular favorite with listeners and Twitters alike. Leo felt(or it was pointed out to him; it wasn't clear) that "geek" still has some negative connotations with the general population, so he declared it would be "Tech" by fiat. The reasoning was that TWIT would grow faster without the baggage of a stereotype, plus "tech" fit the original vision better. For similar reasons, it is only referred to as "TWIT" within the netcast and fansites, iTunes album art notwithstanding.

Based on what Leo said, it seems to me that Laport himself came up with "This Week in Tech". A listener suggested "This Week in Geek", and he changed it to "This Week in Tech" himself. --taestell 22:57, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Name

So is it This Week in Tech or this WEEK in TECH? Because it's called this WEEK in TECH on the website and on the podcast directories where they have an entry. I think it's this WEEK in TECH.—Sixteen Left 00:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "this WEEK in TECH" is just a stylized version of the name used in certain situations. "This Week in Tech" appears on the TWiT website in several places. And the initialism "TWiT" would suggest that the spelling is "This Week in Tech". I will add a note about this to the article. --taestell 04:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

"This Week in Tech" never appears on the official site. "TWiT" suggests it should be "This Week in Tech" but it doesn't mean it MUST be. I'd say the article should be changed to have "this WEEK in TECH" as the one and only meaning. --Happynoodleboy 15:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Awards

TWiT won two podcast awards from PodcastAwards.com, any suggestions on where to mention it? I'm not sure it deserves it own sectiong (yet), but Other details doesn't really seem right. Maybe a little blurb in the intro? -Falcorian 21:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

itunes ranking

Because of [1] I think that the itunes ranking should probably be removed from the page, but I'll leave that up to someone else

Well, it doesn't hurt to have it. But its not the most listened to cast anymore. I think photoshop TV or something got ahead of it just. --Handmedown 21:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

New section

The content below was recently added by User:67.53.79.145. I moved it here for now, since I'm not sure it deserves this much coverage. Maybe condense this down and add it to the "Other details" section? --taestell 20:40, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Music Details

Episode one (known as Revenge of the Screen Savers) used the song "A It Dat" by Wayne & Wax

Episode two (known as Revenge of the Screen Savers) used another song as the intro.

Episode three (the last episode refered to as "Revenge of the Screen Savers") used the Charlie's Angels theme song.

Episode four was the first episode to use the "not suitable for family viewing" (TWIT Introduction) introduction with a random song.

Episode five used the newer version of The Screen Savers theme song combined with the TWIT Introduction.

Episodes six through nine used the old version of The Screen Savers theme song combined with the TWIT Introduction.

Episode ten was the first episode to use the TWiT theme song which was combined with the Jungle Telegram introduction.

Episode eleven was the first to use the introduction used up to this date.

Hosts

Wouldn't Steve Gibson and Alex Lindsey be regular hosts?--72.138.175.46 01:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, they don't get onto the show much anymore. --Handmedown 07:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Gibson has only been on two or three times and hasn't been on since at least TWiT 40. --Happynoodleboy 15:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

He was on Episode 80 December 17 2006.

Cleanin'

I cleaned up the top paragraphs, moving the more detailed information about the show's weekly format to a new section titled 'Format'. Also figured the show should be described a little bit better and on it's own terms - there was a lot of comparing it to The Screen Savers without explaining what that meant specifically, which kind of left people who never saw The Screen Savers in the dark. Hope the edits don't offend... --relaxathon 06:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's something I've been meaning to do forever now! It looks good, great job! --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Molly Wood

Due to the fact that Molly Wood has been on four episodes (44, 49, 56, and 58), and on two of the last three, I think it's safe to say that she is a "recurring guest" rather than an "occasional contributor." I've changed this, but if anyone is greatly opposed to this, discuss it here. Thanks Alexbrewer 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

This Week in Tech is now a network of podcasts (called TWiT) and also a podcast itself (this WEEK in TECH, or TWiT). Because of this, I propose that the current This Week in Tech article be made a disambiguation page which points to the following (example of how it could be worded):

• TWiT (network): a network of audio and video podcasts run by Leo Laporte
• This Week in Tech (podcast): the flagship podcast of the said network

Anyone agree/disagree with this? --Tim1988 ^talk 14:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. 75.132.105.161 06:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to follow up, I went ahead and created a new article for the network at TWiT.tv (network). --Tim1988 ^talk 12:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Drinking game

There has been talks about a drinking game every once and a while. So I googled it and found on digg a suggestion for one:

BRSQUIRRL's TWIT Drinking Game: Take one sip if...

• anyone names the food/beverage that they are enjoying while recording
• Dvorak plugs his blog ("dvorak.org/blog")
• someone co-hosts from a strange location (an airport, under their car, Starbucks, etc.)
• either Robert or Roger mentions his current employment status
• the show takes place in front of a live audience
• Dvorak says that he gets no spam
• Leo uses the phrase "in the can"

Take two sips if...

• they take a question from a listener or the audience
• Leo mentions his book
• any of the hosts gives the specific model of headset/microphone that they are using
• the "box of crap" is mentioned
• someone trashes the user interface of a Google product

Take a big gulp if...

• a female co-hosts
• a well-known tech personality makes an unplanned visit (e.g. Mitnick's visit)
• Leo mentions that he is trying to get Martin to join the show (two gulps if he actually does)

Anyone want to add it to the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.83.219.94 (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

"Programme" to "Program"

Just a heads up, I am going to do a minor edit and change "programme" to "program."--Rabbitdude 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Then just mark it as a minor edit and put your reason in the edit summary.Lyoko is Cool 15:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It has already happened--Rabbitdude 05:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy?

How is posting a series of numbers controversial? It's not even the correct key? I don't see the controversy, deleting.

Back then, it was controversial for large organizations to post the code because it infact, WAS illegal (I think still is, even though HDDVD is dead). It looked almost exactly the same. 216.120.162.178 (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's clear Leo was inviting controversy, but it's not so clear that he succeeded in generating controversy. Notwithstanding the fact that posting the number was technically illegal, the move was broadly supported by all the TWiT panelists and by TWiT's audience. As far as I know, TWiT did not receive a "cease and desist" letter, nor any significant negative attention from the incident. At any rate, posting the key was not TWiT-specific—thousands of websites did so as an act of coordinated civil disobediance (see AACS encryption key controversy). If any of the above is incorrect, please cite a verifiable source and undelete the discussion.

On the same subject, I wonder if the "No TWiT Today" incident really counts as a "controversy." I mean: is a blog post that gets a lot of comments on Digg really a notable occurence? Clconway (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS-TM and this WEEK in TECH

This article may be in violation of WP:MOS-TM regarding casing. —Tokek 07:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no "may be" about it. Under "General rules", it says:

• Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"

This is true for Time magazine; it's doubly true for something as eye-jarring as this title. Wikipedia is meant to be read, not flashed to attract readership. That's why we follow publishing industry-standard avoidance of marketing- and trademark-driven experiments in paleography. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and while I am a twit subscriber, and have been since day one, I think that the article should follow the rules. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Top Story on Digg

I'm not sure the following is verifiable:

On October 22, 2006, Laporte posted a blog item.... The posting became one of the week's top stories on Digg.

I poked around on Digg for a while, but they don't seem to keep historical "charts". Clconway (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Episode Zero

There is sometimes a reference made to the elusive episode zero. This was a roundtable discussion following MacWorld 2005 which Leo recorded and sent out through his The Laporte Report (TLR) feed. It is not listed on the twit.tv site and was not officially the first ROTSS show, but seems to have started the ball rolling and is mentioned occasionally in the first couple episodes. The recording is short and difficult to track down but can currently be found here. Someone may want to add this information to the history section. --BenFranske (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Podcast part of a $1 million broadcast empire

"Petaluma resident Leo Laporte has built a $1 million broadcast empire online with audio podcasts about technology." http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20090329/NEWS/903290372

Is it ok to add info from this article even though it does not mention This Week in Tech specifically? There is lots of information regarding the overall network that This Week in Tech is part of e.g. "His podcasts, which he began doing in 2004, now garner 3 million to 4 million downloads a month."

also "The online broadcasting network that Laporte owns and runs a short walk from his house in Petaluma is called TWiT.tv, after his company’s flagship show, “This Week in Tech.” " is the only reference from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/03/theres-twitter.html despite lots of other possibly pertinent info from the article.

24.103.37.148 (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Hachette

Might be better for TWiT.tv (network). --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

TWiT Revenue

It seems the reference to TWiT's revenue should be on the TWiT.tv page, not the podcast page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBJacobs (talk • contribs) 15:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on This Week in Tech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://twit.tv/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://twit.tv/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Cover art in infobox

The image in the infobox is not displaying correctly. Daylen (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed Seems there was a non-standard character around the |image= parameter, causing things to not work properly. Primefac (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)