The audit also uncovered that the most significant of these lapses involved the DoD's handling of London-based weapons maker BAE Systems. According to the report, DSS failed to collect the company's internal audits—information that is crucial to determining potential weaknesses at the plant. The DSS responded saying that they have "a thorough and fundamentally sound facility inspection process which was only marginally diminished by the failure to systematically collect, analyze, and retain BAE's required reports" and that they have "taken action to resolve this shortcoming." However, a recent House Armed Services Committee hearing revealed that the DSS has been significantly understaffed for some time. Currently, around 750 people work for DSS and a rep claimed to be short staffed by "well over a hundred" persons.

So rest easy folks. Once again, you can be secure in the knowledge that our government has everything under control. UPDATE: BAE systems has responded to claims that their facility is not secure stating that "there is no basis whatsoever for that conclusion." [Wired]

Wait, we just remembered something...TV kinda sucked. [CNBC]

"You don't need to pour a sh-load of money into entertainment to find an audience." But having an audience and being good are not the same thing— YouTube, reality TV and Air Bud have taught us this, if nothing else. [NewTeeVee]

So when all these talk-format entertainment shows come back (Leno, Jon Stewart, etc), Letterman will have a competitive advantage that we can't help but to sympathize with at least a little: he will have his full staff of writers behind him.

Of course, CBS isn't too happy about the agreement...

Because while CBS doesn't own The Late Show, they do license rights for electronic distribution. So it's hard to imagine how the undisclosed agreement between Worldwide Pants and the WGA accounts for this arrangement. CBS clarified that they will not comply with third party agreements.

But for now, it's a small, needed victory for the WGA and, of course, your hungry, hungry television sets (which are in no way affiliated with the domestic breed of hippos).

Mr. Letterman, we'll be tuning in. [nyt]

If you write for a show and are on strike and are interested in doing some writing for us on pretty much whatever the hell you want (as long as it's somewhat related to the sort of stuff we cover now), shoot me an email and lets talk about it. We'd love to get you in front of the keyboards again, even if it's not for the shows that you're used to writing for. And hey, we pay based on traffic, which is just like residuals, so you can get used to that for when you do go back to work after getting your demands met from those dickbags at the studios. Note that we won't be able to toss work to every single writer who's interested, but we'll do what we can. Those of you who write for sci-fi shows such as Futurama or Battlestar Galactica will get first dibs and big, wet, sloppy, fanboy kisses.

Zero Episodes Left
Heroes
The Family Guy
The Office

1 Episode Left
Chuck
Pushing Daisies

3 Episodes Left
CSI
House
Journeyman

4 Episodes Left
30 Rock

7 Episodes Left
Boston Legal

10 Episodes Remain
Battlestar Galactica (SUHWEET!). Episode 11 was planned to be a Ronald D. Moore- directed pile of awesome (NOOOO!).

Unlimited Episodes Left
Dancing With The Stars - TACKY, they are continuing without writers. Because of BBC connection maybe?

For a complete list of dying television, hit this link: [brentevans via zatz]

Ars points out that right now writers pull about four to six cents a DVD, so a two-million seller will bring them between $80,000 and $120,000 on a title raking in millions for the studio. Even though it's a less-than-stellar deal, at least it scales. The $250 flat internet re-distribution payment and fixed $1300 for 15 minutes of internet-only content doesn't, which is a problem in a couple of ways.

For one, these contracts are in place for a long time—when the initial deal regarding DVD sales were made, DVD wasn't very big. In today's climate, they're studios' biggest cash cows, and writers get the short end of the stick. This deal would lock them into the same rate for internet distribution and content, no matter how big new media gets, and it's obviously going to be huge, so they're standing to get screwed even harder here.

On a smaller scale, it means no matter how many clicks—and therefore ad dollars—a video drew, writers would still get the same tiny compensation. The guild's going over this "proposal" until Tuesday, when talks resume, but our feeling is that you better have a hard love for reruns, reality TV or YouTube. [Ars Technica]

Just remove the stand and the barrel extension. It comes with a couple of quick-reload clips and 12 streamline darts and costs $29.99. I think it's the perfect starter kit for kids who have been eyeing up the lube-free auto shotgun. [Hasbro via UberGizmo]

TV is not disappearing anytime soon, but clearly, it's going to be replaced by either the internet or some TV/internet hybrid. Like the music industry, the TV industry realizes that their tried-and-true business model is about to be useless, and it's lashing out in panic. Unlike the music industry, who stupidly attacked its fans, the TV industry is attacking its own creative source: writers. But the WGA wouldn't be striking if this wasn't important. We talked to both sides to get at the root of the trouble.

Eric Appel, who's written for Crank Yankers and The Andy Milonakis Show and consulted for MTVs Human Giant, told me:

"New media is where television is going. In a few years cable is just gonna be the internet. And unlike TiVo where you can skip the advertisements, in [new, network-run] streaming players you're forced to sit through the ads. The networks are making money on that, and the studios don't want to give writers any of it."

Imagine if the recording industry decided that the internet was merely a way to promote CDs and that no songs sold online counted when paying musicians. Their argument would be that people were just checking out those songs and might go buy the CD later, at which point the artist would get paid. This is essentially the argument the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) is making.

Here's what a spokesperson told me:

"New media has proven to be an effective and cost-effective promotional and marketing tool for both films and television but there is not enough marketplace data to judge its true potential, ultimate impact on traditional media or viability as a business."

As it stands, writers get a small percentage of revenue if a show is successful and reruns often, which is why Jerry Seinfeld drives a gold-plated flying car between his mansions in the Hamptons and Dubai. At the moment, they aren't paid any residuals for new media distribution, despite the fact that online content delivery is the future.

The problem with this logic is that if new media really didn't bring in any money, there wouldn't be a problem. The writers are asking for a percentage of profits from new media — a percentage of nothing is nothing, after all.

So what this battle basically boils down to is the producers trying to move away from a residuals system, one in which writers are paid once for their work and get nothing for creating huge hits. It'll make them a whole lot more money and writers a whole lot less. And it's not just the livelihood of writers at stake; this same issue is going to come up with actors and directors as well in the near future. It's a battle for how business will be done in TV's new age, and one that will affect the entertainment that all of us consume for the foreseeable future.

What the guild's asking for with online or mobile distribution is 2.5 percent of the "distributors' gross revenue." Apparently this is tricky for distributors because it's difficult to tell what percentage of the online audience is new to a show or old hands simply shifting to a different medium—I'm guessing this is a problem for the issue at hand because producers don't want to pay writers twice for the same audience.

But, it seems unfair to only compensate writers for content explicitly purchased by viewers (like on iTunes), particularly as more and more content shifts online supported by ads, even if that ad revenue is nowhere near what is for broadcast for the time being. It's only going to get bigger, so they should get a hold of what they can, while they can, lest they feel screwed once again in a few years. [WSJ]

This is not just any ordinary flashlight. Carved out of a solid block of aircraft-grade aluminum, it's waterproof and shockproof. You'll pay dearly for all that quality, though: $100 for the two-cell 3-watt model, $80 for the single-cell light that lasts two hours on a battery, or you could go all-out for the $220 five-watt two-cell light (available in May) that cranks out 110 lumens. – Charlie White

Product Page [Brite-Strike]

Steam, the folks who distribute Counter-Strike, launched a Dynamic Weapon Pricing market for the game. They explain it best:

The cost of weapons and equipment that you purchase in Counter-Strike: Source are now based on an algorithm that calculates the global market demand for various weapons. As more people purchase a certain weapon, the price will rise and other weapons will become less expensive.

Starting October 11th, the prices you pay for weapons in Counter-Strike: Source will be updated every Monday based on the volume of purchases over the previous week.

Dynamic Weapon Pricing [Steam]

In Times of Crisis, You Must Draw a Line [Gawker]