Once again, since it really doesn't seem to be sinking in:

I did not say it would be an awesome idea to kick the guy giving the presentation in the nuts and then take a flamethrower to his company's stand. Neither, I think you'll find, did Gizmodo. I said I found it mildly amusing that a few TVs were turned off. As did they.

Oy.

PR goons insult my intelligence, and my readers' intelligence, with their constant gush of self-serving content-free bullshit.

Yes, I hate PR people (did I mention that already?), but I think what Gizmodo did at CES was utterly pathetic. I'm ashamed that anyone might think I'm in the same profession as that bunch of arrogant kids.

Where do you draw the line with stunts like this? If it's OK for the professionals at Gizmodo to get pranky, can anyone else disrupt a presentation for laughs?

If our victims tape over their infra-red receivers, shall we bring radio transmitters next time and screw with their wireless microphones. Let's take cell phone jammers too, and then we can giggle at videos of tired, harried folks having their calls home interrupted repeatedly.

Let's throw some stink bombs, too, or maybe a little pepper spray, that'll clear the presentation out! Awesome! Maybe an electromagnetic pulse generator could wipe out a whole booth!

We'll get some kickass clips for teh Gootube, yes let's all go to CES next year and play journalist and give it some lulz. It'll be a riot.

You can impede the Holy Process of Marketing as much as you like, but when you do, try to have a little fucking respect for your fellow human beings, whether you think they deserve it or not... and that way you'll keep a little bit for yourself, too.

Yes, it is. Gee, it's lucky that that I didn't actually say that, isn't it?

As you say, it comes down to where you draw the line.

For most people, I think the line should be drawn somewhere after "asking impertinent questions". For PR dudes, I think it should be drawn somewhere short of "setting his car on fire".

Thank you, and goodnight.

That said, conventions like CES take themselves WAY too seriously. After being to the one this year (and unfortunately missing the gizmodo stunt), I don't know if I'll be back. The big-name vendors are, for the most part, simply "too busy" to talk to people unless you have the name of a fortune 500 company on your badge. Infact the main convention centre displays were pretty much a waste of time. I didn't learn anything in person that I couldn't have learned just by visiting various websites that had staffthere.

The real innovation and people who were fun to talk to were the smaller startup companies in the Sands Convention Centre. Granted, there were a million asian vendors selling "MP4" players and "Photoframes", but once you got past that, you could have a lot of fun there.

Personally, I think I'll stick with NAB from now on. Much better IMHO.

(I even checked the website for the Adult Entertainment Expo that was also conveniently located in the Sands, but as soon as I saw the list of what was "banned" (ie: everything, including showing pretty much any skin whatsoever), I knew it was a waste of time).

Whether the inconvenience was minor or not or even if it was humorous is irrelevant. Of course I laughed, it was funny - but that's where it stopped. Actually condoning the idea that you can do whatever you like to someone or thing just because you don't like said thing is bullshit, plain and simple.

And in any case, where do you draw the line? When you (arbitrarily) thing something is no longer funny?

"I'll bet they're wondering about how their software failed instead of checking the power buttons."

It appears to me that most people are reading more into this than is necessary. Sure, what the Gizmodo guys did was a bit childish and of questionable value, but how much actual inconvenience did they cause? How hard can it be to turn a monitor back on? Seriously, if the design of said monitors is such that turning them back on is, you know, DIFFICULT then why are they being touted at CES as the New Hotness anyway? Maybe Gizmodo is doing them a favour by performing some real-world QA testing.

Now, if they'd continued to persistently turn off monitors to the point where it *did* disrupt proceedings, that, I believe, would have been taking things a bit too far. The Motorola presentation may have suffered some bumps, but the presenter sailed merrily along nevertheless. Heck, if it made the show mildly entertaining then maybe the attendees would've actually paid closer attention and taken more of it in. That would warm the cockles of any Marketroid's heart.

Desipte the so-called ban, I think the only real concrete consequence of this you'll see is at next year's show when squares of black gaffa tape will suddenly become a fashonable monitor accessory.

And no, I do not feel like ignoring bad things. I will not make the annihilation of dumb trade shows my lifelong crusade, but neither will I STFU about them just because you think I should.

If you've got nothing nice to say about someone, and they're doing bad things, then you should say bad things about them.

In any case, this post right here represents the only time I've said anything actually about the Consumer Electronics Show on either of my sites. It's been mentioned in passing on a couple of other pages, but that's it.

And, for the benefit of the hard of thinking, my WiFi analogy compared pointing a remote at someone's TV with connecting to their unsecured WiFi, and compared yanking the cable out of their gear with sneaking in to plug in an Ethernet cable.

(I guess I'd better not ask you guys about Ralph and Vikings.)