This is a modern problem. In the days before all this technology, everyone watched the same things, at the same time. If you missed a TV show, you were SOL - but you didn't miss it. And should you, you didn't risk running into anything more hazardous to the enjoyment of a plot twist than a mouthy coworker. Of course, there were still twists: Psycho's publicists went to famous lengths to keep the plot secret, and a recent trailer I saw for Spencer Tracy's 1941 Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde requested that the audience not "tell their friends" about the actor's dramatic transformation.

But clearly, it's become an issue, especially with must-see series like Mad Men, that people are as apt to watch a few days or even months after airing as not. It's something we run across a lot on this site: how much to give away? What's fair game? How much is universally known? January Jones has gone on record in her belief that, once aired, the term "spoiler" isn't applicable. And this increasingly rigid definition is gaining ground amongst those who are sick of tiptoeing around the viewing habits of others.

Point: In a recent essay on the blog Televiosinary, Jace Lacob asserted his argument thusly:

I firmly believe that, once an episode has aired across the country, all bets are off. It's a free-for-all, as far as I am concerned. Writers, critics, bloggers, whoever, should be free to discuss the episode's intricacies and plot developments with abandon. There's no need to label a post, an interview, or anything as a "spoiler" because it's not spoiling anything.

Sums up one of his commenters, "The simple rule should be: Before the fact, spoiler. After the fact, public. Those of us who write/blog/talk about TV on a regular basis can't be expected to know the viewing habits of all our readers."

And another, "Asking that writers, editors and sites label something that's already aired as a "spoiler" is essentially asking them to tailor their coverage to the individual reader who has not seen it. I know people time delay their viewing. The simple solution, as stated above, avoid the sites."

Counterpoint: The retort of Slashfilm's David Chin, however, is equally straightforward. "Really, how difficult is it to just throw up a sentence at the beginning of the post explaining what exactly you'll cover/spoil?" Furthermore, he argues, the notion of "airing" is arbitrary nowadays.

The world of broadcast and cable television is rapidly moving away from the idea of fixed schedules for television shows. Very few of my friends and colleagues watch shows on TV when the air, and if they do, they also use things like DVD, DVR, and Hulu to supplement the episodes they don't see. On the one hand, I question how realistic and reasonable it is to expect people to know exactly where a show is in its timeline. If you're catching up with a show on DVD/DVR/Hulu, it's entirely possible that you will have no idea what episodes have recently aired. And while you would be a good, well-behaved TV watcher if you kept informed, it's a lot easier for me to take five seconds to write a one-sentence spoiler warning than for you to find out where exactly a show is in its release schedule.

Weighing in, NPR's Linda Holmes takes a middle ground, but feels the silent treatment is, ultimately, unrealistic. "At some point, we have just entirely lost the quality of the discussion, because I am leading you through a series of security doors that 95 percent of people won't care about and will find cumbersome and frustrating, just so that you can avoid knowing that Pam has a sister who will be on an upcoming episode." A wild-card view comes from the Guardian's Peter Robins, who argues that sometimes - as in the case of a highly sexual movie one sees with one's elderly mother - a spoiler is not just appreciated but necessary.

Of course, a lot of the argument boils down to common sense. Robins is talking about content, not plot. No matter when it runs, a story should try not to reveal a major spoiler in the title, especially if as in the case of our layout, one can stumble upon it in the course of a casual scan. A year later is not the same as a day. By the same token, don't read a post about a show you're saving because you had a dinner with your boyfriend's family. Understand that some things are common knowledge. And also know that (with the exception of various horror films) the pleasure does not all lie in the twists. For instance, I was still able to enjoy Hamlet.

Why Talking About An Episode That's Already Aired Isn't A "Spoiler" [Televiosionary]
Spoiler Alert: The Responsibility Of Online Writers In A Hulu/DVR World [Slashfilm]
Film Spoilers Can Be Good For You [Guardian]
The Spoiler Problem (Contains Spoilers) [NPR]

Related: January Jones Doesn't Believe In Mad Men Spoilers

(Don't worry. None of the links are spoilers. They all go to reference pages, to refresh your memory.)

Here's what we know:
Season 5 is about why people the who are off the island (the Oceanic Six: Jack, Kate, Sun, Aaron, Hurley, Sayid) need to get back. According to interviews with the show's writers, Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof, at the Lost panel at ComicCon 2008, the finale of season 4 was written as a pilot for season 5, which means that last season's finale is very important in setting up what will happen in season 5. The writers also said, in reference to characters, that "death is a relative term." Also, the notion of what is past, what is present, and what is future will change, which could mean that the guy who invented the Lost Time Loop Theory was right all along. Cuse and Lindelof also said that we won't know where or when anything takes place at the start of season 5.

Season will have 17 episodes. Here are the titles for the first 10:
1. Because You Left
2. The Lie
3. Jughead
4. The Little Prince
5. This Place Is Death
6. The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham
7. 316
8. LeFleur
9. Namaste
10. He's Our You

Remember Jeremy Bentham? It was the name of the man in the obituary Jack was reading in the finale episode for season 3. Jack was the only person who went to the viewing and we later learned that the man in the coffin was John Locke. It hasn't yet been revealed why Locke used this alias, although the name reference is interesting, and gives us some clues. The real-life Jeremy Bentham was a philosopher born in the mid-18th century, known for his "advocacy of utilitarianism, a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome - the ends justify the means. Utilitarianism argued that the 'right' action or policy was that which would cause 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number.'" He argued that the "ability to suffer, not the ability to reason, must be the benchmark of how we treat other beings." That sounds a lot like Locke.

Anyway, here is some info on how Locke/Bentham ended up in that coffin:
Jeremy Bentham will die in a car crash.

Characters:
According to interviews with producers, Desmond — who's known for his mysterious ability to predict the future — will be one of the main focuses of this upcoming season:
What happened to him in prison will be explored. His relationship with Penny will also be a part of season 5.

There are also plans for Rousseau, the French woman who's been trapped on the island since 1988 and gave birth there, only to have her daughter Alex kidnapped by the Others.
We will get her back story, which will most likely revolve around what happened to her and her science team when they were first stranded on the island, since it's been confirmed that a "young Rousseau" has been cast for this season.
We will also find out what happened to Montand's arm. Montand was a member of Rousseau's science expedition, and she once briefly mentioned that he lost his arm.

As for Claire:
She will not be in any new scenes in season 5. Her contract has been put on hold because producers do not want her to appear until the 6th and final season, for which she's expected to have a big presence.

Christian (Claire and Jack's father, and Aaron's grandfather):
He'll be a series regular in season 5, even though he died before the plane crashed.

Daniel Faraday, the physicist who arrived on the island via helicopter last season (played by Jeremy Davies):
He, Charlotte and Miles will suffer nosebleeds and get the same sickness that Desmond had in season 4, which is an indication of time travel.

Ben:
It's revealed that he "had words" with the real Henry Gale, the man who landed on the island in a hot air balloon, and whose identity Ben stole in the first season when he infiltrated the crash survivors' camp. He told them that Henry Gale was dead when he found him.

Richard Alpert, one of the Hostiles:
His past will be revealed, and he will be featured prominently. We also will find out that he's very old (over 100), even though he doesn't seem to age.

Info on some other main characters:
Charlie, Ana-Lucia, and Mr. Eko will all return!
As will Libby. the only member of the main cast who was never given her own centric episode with more than one flashback. She is also the only main Flight-815er whose motives for going to Australia and boarding the flight have yet to be disclosed. The theory that she is one of the Others is "not barking up the wrong tree."

Radzinsky, the Dharma station worker who shot himself before Desmond arrived will make an appearance this season.

And a biggie:
Jin's not dead!

What Sawyer whispered in Kate's ear before he jumped out of the helicopter on the season 4 finale:
He wants Kate to find his daughter Clementine that he had with his old con partner Cassidy, and tell her what happened to him.

And finally:
In order for the Oceanic Six to get back to the island, they will have to travel to off-island Dharma stations. Also, in this season, there are no more flashbacks or flashforwards.

Here's a sneak peek at a full scene from the upcoming season, featuring Ben and Jack.

And here's a new trailer, released today: