Slashdot Mirror

I am surprised that UK parents and teachers are so up in arms about WiFi when they so don't give a damn about the food that is killing their kids as The Naked Chef points out here. I think the number one culprit is called a "Twizler" (mechanically processed sausage thingy), not WiFi.

"You want to play hardball...? You want to try to throw me in jail? You have no idea what you are unleashing in doing this. You're at the brink..."

http://www.channel4.com/player/v2/player.jsp?showI d=2053

That's where it runs in the UK, where More4 run it after their main evening news.

http://www.channel4.com/more4/

I can't remember if we get a "satire warning" up front, but isn't it kind of obvious?

Come on, the show was done by Eurotrash. It's a joke:
http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsite s/E/eurotrash/Rapido_trash/galleries/naked_germans /500/germans6.jpg

Well, I was thinking of it in a very Avid Merrion kind of way.

I want to put my wet on my Wii. AHEM.

http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsite s/B/bo_selecta/

I think this is for the scrapheap roadshow where you build stuff before you go on - http://www.channel4.com/4car/ontv/scrapheap/

There was a UK reality show based around a bunch of people thinking they were off in to space. I wonder if this is the US version? You have been warned!

As you'd expect with a reality show, they all went a bit loopy pretty quickly. I do wonder what it is with the modern world that makes people flip out so badly under unusual conditions. If we had something like WW2 now I suspect everyone would just run around waving their arms mumbling 'wibble'. It just makes you appreciate what a level headed bunch our parents/grandparents were.

Last year, Richard Dawkins, of The Selfish Gene fame, made a documentary about religion called "Root of All Evil?", where he defines faith as "the process of non-thinking" that can lead to even the worst human condition, like murderous thinking when the fundamentalism make people hate and kill each other. Just like what's happening in Israel right now.

One of the most interesting things about it is that he tries to talk with several religious leaders about evolution, and they sistematically avoid any rational discussion and undeniable evidence with the same stupid arguments, equivalent to "my book says this and therefore, it must be true".

He brings forth the question "why can't schools just teach science in SCIENCE class?"

Quite controversial, I recommend it very much.

Well it all depends on your tastes. Some guys like the plastic chick look. Others find it appallingly horrid. I tend to like lots of looks. So I think Killcreek was cute before she met John, then amped up to "porn star" looks while retaining some of the original cuteness. But hell, what do I know. I like Geri Halliwell, Kylie Minogue, and Michelle Gomez of Greenwing fame, so go figure.

Unfortunately the site doesn't have anywhere near the detail of the Channel 4 doco. However, you can see from the timeline that the NK33s were built in 1973 and put into storage in 1974.

When they were discovered by the US rocket scientists in 1993 they were more efficient than any US designed rocket at the time. So we really are talking 20 years. Would love to see the video again if it's out there.

jealous?

Actually no, your hubris just proved his point.

One thing I've learned over the past few years as a consultant to many companies is that those who think they're at the top of their game stop questioning how they can do things better.

Perhaps this is why rocket scientists from Raytheon were a little embarrassed to find 20 year old rocket engines in a Russian warehouse that were more efficient than their most modern designs.

ObsessiveMathsFreak said:

For instance, suppose athletes, as a condition of their scholarship, were required to say, not engage in sexual relations with anyone outside of a legal union. Or perhaps, were required not to enage in homosexual relations of any kind?

Patrick Henry College requires it's students to promise that. They were in a Channel 4 documentary recently in the UK, this is from the report:

Once at the college, the students ceremonially sign a covenant which commits them to a strict behaviour code: no alcohol, drugs or obscene literature; sex will be reserved for marriage; personal conflicts will be resolved biblically; the students will be above reproach, will uphold the tenets of evangelical Christianity and lead the nation for Christ.

I find this level of control over students life scary, even as a christian myself.

There was actually a theatre chain in the UK that introduced a variable-pricing model: Easy Cinema. They avoided having to make subjective choices about which tickets are worth more by a simple, objective pricing model.

Basically, for any given screening, the first ten tickets they sold cost 40 cents. The next ten cost 95 cents. The next ten cost $1.50. (I'm completely making the numbers up off the top of my head here, just to give you an idea of the pricing mechanism.) And so on up until it topped out at whatever the maximum ticket price is.

Of course, if they did this in person, it would be a recipe for madness at the ticket window. So all sales were online. You bought a ticket from your computer, print it out, and then when you got to the theatre, you scanned it into a bar code reader. The place was virtually unstaffed--they didn't even sell refreshments, and you are encouraged to bring your own popcorn.

You will notice that the above is entirely in the past tense. EasyCinema opened in May 2003 and closed in May 2006, although the website survives as a DVD rental site. Apparently they just couldn't make enough to justify the rent on the building.

You can read more in this article, written when the cinema first opened. (The article is, unnecessarily and somewhat annoyingly, spread across 6 pages, but it's worth clicking all the way through if you're interested in this subject.)

There is another angle that you can take in looking at this question: what does your job require you to know? Or perhaps, what do you need to know in order to qualify for a particular position?

I've been in the IT industry for a long time, including as a consultant and I've seen companies of various sizes. I'll never forget one huge financial services firm, which of course had a correspondingly huge IT department (on the order of 1,000 people), had a guy who was in charge of DNS. That's it. This guy probably got paid 6 figures just to manage their DNS. I'm not saying DNS isn't important, but I can't believe it took up 40 hours of work a week. Anyway, that was just an example of one extreme. On the other hand, you could work for a small company that has lots of IT demands like I do, and they need me to know stuff ranging from managing the computers/network/security to the PBX and phone lines.

So if you're not currently employed in IT, do a little research. Find out what kind of company you'd like to work for, and what they want in an IT guy.

PS> If you're in England or at least get Channel 4, check out the IT crowd. It's a pretty funny sitcom on life in IT. If not, you can find episodes on the show's website or on YouTube.

Is it definitely Plugged In?

I never saw it but it looked pretty lame. Actually training them (not anybody, real potential astronauts) and sending the winner into space would be far more interesting.

It was called Nathan Barley.

There's a reason there's a magazine called "Shoreditch Twat".

As the BBC story did not contain the ciphertext I copied it from another story at Reuters if you look at the bottom of that page the paragraph reads-

He said Smith told him to look back at the first paragraphs. The italicized letters scattered throughout the judgment spell out: "smithcode Jaeiextostpsacgreamqwfkadpmqz".

So actually it was Reuters or the BBCs mistake not mine.

I have used Google news and from the reports it seems there is not a consistant agreement on the ciphertext for example-

smithycode JaeiextostgpsacgreamqwfkadpmqzviMi

Smithycode Jaeiextostgpsacgreaamqwfkadpmqzv

I don't have time to go through the whole pdf, so I'm not going to guess which one is correct. And yes, I added spaces to get round the lameness filter, ignore them.

It was called the science of secrecy (and is well worth watching if you can get hold of a copy) and was produced for Channel 4. They have some information on their website about the programme http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/secre cy/index.html though I don't think it has ever been released on DVD. Mark

Can you name even one person who has been "shipped off sans due process to an offshore prison camp" who wasn't captured in a war zone under arms while not wearing a uniform?

Road to Guantanamo

Great movie.

More info at

Channel 4's site on Road to Guantanamo

Thanks for your reply. I think you misunderstood me with regard to Lamarckism - I was comparing the state of ID to him, not of evolution or origins science in general. In other words, I'm admitting that the science behind ID has serious problems, but I believe (as a theist) that it is heading in the right direction; just as Lamarckism was right (big picture - inherited characteristics, gradual changes etc.) but wrong in pretty much all the details, I think that the thrust of ID is right (looking for real evidence of design in biological systems) whilst many of the details (e.g. the human blood clotting cascade cannot have evolved) are wrong.

Where I differ from you is that I don't think "no supernatural influences allowed" is a reasonable criterion for what constitutes a scientific theory. As an example, cosmology was held up for years because the 'Big Bang' implied a definite start to the universe, and a definite start was thought to imply a cause ('who lit the fuse?'). Only as the evidence became compelling was the thoery accepted. Attempts have been made to exclude the possibility of a first cause by postulating an expanding and eventually contracting universe ('big crunch') - but really there is no answer to this because we can't know what happened before the bang.

I understand your viewpoint that ID is just an attempt to discredit evolution, but I don't think that's true based on what the ID people are saying (i.e. those that have published real books and papers - not 'Creationists' jumping on the bandwagon). Both Behe and Dembski state frequently that they have no problem with evolution being the general mechanism of species development. Again, I think there's confusion between motivation and the actual ideas that are being thrown around. I'm quite certain that Dawkin's motivation is to eradicate theism (he recently made a TV show entitled The Root of all Evil that attemps to show that religion is just that). But this has nothing really to do with his scientific theories and research (although he was trading on his name and reputation as a scientist when he made that programme). As a theist, I find myself suspicious of a man who is openly anti-religion, but I am compelled to examine his scientific works on their own merit.

The peer review issue is often cited as a reason for regarding ID as pseudoscience; I think there's a chicken and egg issue there. It's worth noting that The Origin of Species was published as a book. There are plenty of ID books in print that can be pulled apart and tested - as many biochemists have done with Behe's work. Papers that are explicit about ID will not get published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals until the ideas that are proposed are acceptable to the peer reviewers. I think this is a shame, because the sort of work that Dembski is doing (is it possible to determine if there is design in biological systems?) is important - the answer might be 'yes it is, and there isn't any'. I believe science can both ask and answer this question (but that is just a belief) and I hope that the forum to do that will emerge and all the nonsense of young-earth creationists bashing evolution will stop.

I do understand and appreciate that ID is distasteful for a number of reasons. I've just read Behe's Darwin's Black Box and if that is all I had read I would agree with you 100%. But I've also just read Dembski's The Design Revolution and it's really, really good stuff. If you've enjoyed this discussion then I would really recommend reading Dembski's book. You probably won't agree with its conclusions, but I think you will find that it does give some promise of adding to our understanding of the world, and I would put it in that category of books that give a stimulating intellectual experience even if many would disagree with it overall.

mass market paperbooks like sci fi have larger audiences, and can sit on the shelf for years..
tech books have small audiences, and a short shelf life.

I'm with you on the 'short shelf life' of technical books -- but that should be reasons for the bookstores to try for a higher turnover. Who wants to pick up that book on HTML+, when there's a book about XHTML 2.0 (nevermind that the spec is still in draft, and there's little if any browser support).

But sitting on the shelf you years is the absolutely worst thing that can happen to something in a store -- shelf space costs money. That's how Amazon can undercut prices while still making a profit -- they don't have a store that's 1/2 full of stuff that's not selling ... they make profit by turning stuff over, not letting it collect dust.

Yes, there are places out there that are reminiscent of 'Black Books', but it's not nearly as profitable as actually selling things.

Do you want to by a book on windows 95 in 2006? no? but you can still pick up a copy of Asimov robots of dawn...

I personally don't, but if there's someone out there who's forced to support Win95 because his boss refuses to switch, he's going to want the book. I've had to support quite a few outdated OSes because of management decisions (yay, Netscape 3.0g on Solaris 2.5! ... in 2003), and found that Amazon Marketplace and eBay to be great places to pick up reference materials after the typical bookstore has stopped carrying them, assuming there isn't a market. And unfortunately, I don't work down the street from Reiter's any more.

In the UK a director has released a film which has been offered straight for download at the same time as it was released on TV: "The Road to Guantanamo. It was shown at the Berlin Film Festival but I guess Channel 4 (the UK arts channel) decide to buy the rights to show it here. It's an 'reconstruction/ documentary' kind of film so not mainstream pulp but it's interesting to see this method of release. I was a bit disappointed to find you actually have to *pay* to download the film from Tiscali but nevertheless it's an interesting approach, I'll wonder if we'll see more of this kind of 'parallel release' in future?

Unfortunately for them, if it is fiction then it's not even fiction that they created. It's certainly been alleged that the whole story was created by Pierre Plantard, Philippe de Cherisey and Gerard de Sede back in the 1960s as a confidence trick which the authors of Holy Blood and the Holy Grail were suckered into. Perhaps they should be suing Dan Brown?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Plantard or http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/W/weird worlds/da_vinci_code/priory_sion.html

That said, the DaVinci code story is pretty much the same background plot as contained within Holy Blood and the Holy Grail irrespective of where it came from.

Something's gonna power it, so in my mind it may as well be Linux.

Yeah, because who's gonna trust Windows on their military equipemnt?

Episode 2 is now up

http://edge.channel4.com/theitcrowd/episode1_c4web .wmv

He said _download_, didn't he? It's not surprising a Mac user can't even get that far. He's probably having difficulty with the mms:// protocol in his browser. If someone were to provide him with the following link[1] he'd probably be fine.

[1]http://edge.channel4.com/theitcrowd/episode1_c4 web.wmv
[2]http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?cgiurl =http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2F&fkr=1&from=R8&s atitle=barebones+pc&category0=

(Okay, 2 was just to point him in the proper direction.)

wget http://edge.channel4.com/theitcrowd/episode1_c4web .wmv

So what would happen if one of the geek faves, say, Mythbusters was hosted by a man and a woman (cf. Scrapheap Challenge/Junkyard Wars? Or by two women - say, Scottie and Cathy Rogers hosting, while Jamie and Adam do the dirty work.

I suspect people would find the latter scary, and possibly dangerous. Like what happened when they made a movie about two women shooting their way across the west.

...laura

A couple of weeks ago Channel 4 had two one hour programs featuring Richard Dawkins on religion The Root of All Evil

At least here in the UK it seems that the debate is alive and well, and broadcasters are not afraid of addressing the issue of religious dogma.

It's only a shame that those people most likely to watch BBC2 and Channel 4 are also those most likely to value rational scientific truth over religious faith.

Networks eager to get their shows on people's ipods will certainly be tempted to try to strike special deals to make their shows more easily obtainable.

They could just put downloadble copies on thier own websites, already in downloadable in an iPod friendly file for free. Channel 4 in the UK are going to do something with the launch of the IT Crowd - while that looks like it'll be streamed instead of downloaded, it's only a matter of time before they start making downloads of programmes available in order to drum up interest. As long as watching video on an iPod is not as good as watching it on the small screen (or should that now be called the the medium screen) it'll be a great marketting tool to sell the broadcast.

This reads like a story invented in a Reuters reporter's head, with out-of-context quotes from scientists to support his clever idea. Anybody that followed the homo floresiensis story knows that large mammals tend to become dwarves on islands.

i am a big fan of Channel 4 news, with John Snow. As it lasts for an hour ( ok about 50 mins with ads) it can spen much more time on each topic, rather than the 1 mintue summery and generic live feed to journo in the field replying to quikly surmised answers. although i agree the BBC has to be the best online news site.

its just the set of Space Cadets 2.

Oddly, Ryan McBride is from Glasgow... as is Gordon Ramsay, the TV chef in the top left of the picture. I spotted the guy in the ad, and did wonder, but Ryan's pointed out as the guy who saved him from a ruptured spleen by giving blood.

Could it be that this is just coincidence and that the ad is real? In other words, the guy gave blood in Glasgow and Mr. Ramsay got it? It would make sense...

Taken from the Channel 4's site, a few of the TV "Adverts" the crew recorded before hand After a few stuttery starts the crew gathered to record: "Hi we're the first civilian crew on Earth Orbiter 1 and you're watching KL2, Russia's only gymnastic channel." Next up, Capcom got the crew to dance, presumably to the music in their heads, and say: "We're the crew on Earth Orbiter 1, and we're loving this funky tune." Finally, with Keri pretending to shoot Charlie, while strangling Billy at the same time, the ad friendly four recorded: "And next on KBB4, Murder She Wrote..." http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsite s/S/spacecadets/news/story.jsp?id=235

Space Cadets is a hoax. The official SC website has information on each contestent. In particular "Ryan McBride" occupation is described as "electrician":
http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsite s/S/spacecadets/cadets/ryan-mcbride.html

However he also appears on a TV advert to give blood (near the end, you see him 3 times):
http://www.blood.co.uk/pages/flashAdvert5S.htm

The rumours cirulating among the illuminati is that the jokes on you! the viewers and this will be revealed on the last episode. You will be the ones who are stupid enough to think other people were stupid enough to think they were going into space :)

Well said. Anyone else notice that the guy with the ginger afro appeared in a "Give Blood" (blood donation) advert and saved Gordon Ramsey's life in it? Obviously the casting people can't be trying that hard if an actor that's appeared on TV fairly recently can show up as a "legitimate" contestant. See the commercial here:
http://www.blood.co.uk/pages/flashAdvert5L.htm

And here's the guy's profile:
http://channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/S/ spacecadets/cadets/ryan-mcbride.html

Oooh, it's the *same guy*, who'd have thought? (Incidentally, some friends met him at the Wickerman festival & said he was a thoroughly nice chap. And an actor.)

It's obviously exactly what you say, the next generation of reality show, but probably not quite so simple in that I think they KNOW that plants will be exposed, so plan on playing this out in the media for as much hype as possible. This does then imply that there must then be at least one REAL contestant who is blissfully unaware of all this (i.e. not the sharpest tool in the box) who gets to be "Truman".

Personally I'd prefer it if Channel 4 actually spent money on a decent programming instead of throwing their money at Endemol for crap like this. At least we've got the BBC, eh?

You can watch direct scenes at http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsite s/S/spacecadets/ one of the best scenes of the week was this one (no signup required for link below) http://www.channel4.com/player/playerwindow.html?i d=d04_1012_minsky_lecture&vert=spacecadets The guy thats trying dead hard not to laugh was actually an actor, they placed 3 actors in the group in order to influence the rest of them a bit in the right direction.

You can watch direct scenes at http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsite s/S/spacecadets/ one of the best scenes of the week was this one (no signup required for link below) http://www.channel4.com/player/playerwindow.html?i d=d04_1012_minsky_lecture&vert=spacecadets The guy thats trying dead hard not to laugh was actually an actor, they placed 3 actors in the group in order to influence the rest of them a bit in the right direction.

Not sure about that. I'd spotted the guy in the Give Blood ad too - they're still showing it fer crying out loud - but remember that on previous Big Brothers several contestants were registered as actors/models while eking out an existence in a real job until someone 'recognized their talent'.

The kind of people who apply for Endemol shows are desperate for the oxygen of publicity. This isn't going to be the only show they've tried to get on. eg: this bloke won 'Playing it Straight' on Ch4 and also won 'Britains worst builder' on Ch5. Crap ctor? Crap model? Crap builder? Probably all three; not a confidence trick by the producers but a fame-grab by the contestant.

The whole fakery of this bullshit taken to a new level by E4's Bamboozle - a gameshow where the point is to get yourself on other telly shows as much as possible.

In fact, they did. The "astronauts" were selected on the basis of their suggestibility and ignorance of physics, space and Russia. The extent of which is quite astounding - they are told that they are "too close to earth" to experience any weightlessness. Which has interesting implications for the fate of their shuttle...

Here are the deeply patronising contestant profiles from the Channel Four web site:

Andrew is a student who lives at home with his parents. He's good looking and confident, and describes himself as funny, intelligent, charming and considerate. One of his luckiest moments was going out with the prettiest girl in his primary school.
Andrew finds the R Kelly track 'I Believe I Can Fly' inspirational because it gives him self-belief and makes him feel he can do anything.
He is a keen Arsenal fan and plays football in a local league - but that's not his only interest: he also confesses to being a church attendee but sadly he only mimes the words to the hymns, as he doesn't know the words.
Andrew is also scared of moths.

Astrid is looking for some real excitement in her life. She's a pretty blonde from Mid Glamorgan, who went to school in Cardiff with pop chick Charlotte Church. She now lives in the sticks, so can't hit the town every night.
Astrid works in a call centre, and has had five different jobs this year but still doesn't know what she wants to do. In fact, she wants to do everything! She's also quite clumsy and has a habit of losing mobile phones. Like her old school chum Charlotte, she also likes to sing, but suffers from stagefright and can only perform in front of her family.
Astrid's had a boyfriend for the last 6 months and claims she has lots of friends. She's an adventurous girl who dreams of riding in a Formula 1 car. She gets annoyed by two-faced people and hates seeing others being picked on.

Billy is one for the ladies. He is a semi-pro footballer and his ultimate ambition is a to be a footballer or film star. He realises he's too old for professional football but there is still time to hit Hollywood. He describes himself as tall, dark and handsome, funny, outgoing, polite and caring but also one of the lads.
Billy loves the film Armageddon, hates spiders and the idea of drowning and says his most embarrassing moment was when his ex girlfriend's dad witnessed him walking down the catwalk in a red silk thong. He believes in reincarnation and wants to return as a golden eagle. Billy does not believe in ghosts but claims to have seen an alien.

Cheryl is a lively, ambitious and opinionated girl who loves people. She is also impatient and hates being alone. A firm believer in fate, she believes in reincarnation and ghosts - she says a guardian angel visited her when she was aged sixteen. She fears drowning and fire but feels that taking part in a 'thrill-seekers' show will give her the chance to do something unique.
Cheryl describes herself as a typical, up-for-it 23 year old girl. She hates liars and smoking, and enjoys clubbing with her friends, clothes and relaxing in a bath with a glass of wine.

Keri's so keen on space travel that her ultimate fancy dress outfit is dressing up as an astronaut. She describes herself as a friendly, outgoing girl who will try anything once, and compares herself to Bridget Jones. She's also a team player - as long as the team wins! Her fears include drowning and spiders, and she never, ever wants to free-fall into water or sing in front of a group of people.
Keri's strangest job was dressing up as a human eyeball to promote Specsavers. Other unusual achievements include being able to put her fist in her mouth.
Things Keri likes include Christmas, white-knuckle rides, family, friends, holidays, romance and chocolate.

Louise is sporty and competitive and represents her county in basketball and athletics. She lived in Canada for ten months, and admits to being afraid of

"When the cadets look out of the cockpit window, they'll see a distant earth, thanks to meticulous visual effects."

When the cadets look out of the cockpit window, they'll see a distant earth, thanks to meticulous visual effects.

Andrew is also scared of moths.

Astrid's had a boyfriend for the last 6 months and claims she has lots of friends. She's an adventurous girl who dreams of riding in a Formula 1 car.

He believes in reincarnation and wants to return as a golden eagle. Billy does not believe in ghosts but claims to have seen an alien.

Keri's strangest job was dressing up as a human eyeball to promote Specsavers. Other unusual achievements include being able to put her fist in her mouth.

Ryan is happiest when he has no responsibility, but he has big plans for the future - so watch out world!

You drive the wrong car. Try a Citroen DS, that can drive on the freeway with three wheels for miles.

If this is the same program as this Channel4 production, then I highly recommend it. Although undoubtedly it has nothing to offer the Slashdot crowd from a science standpoint, the human face it puts on scientists we all too often only know from their work is excellent.

"and 2 for 'squared,' the multiplication of one number by itself"

is that what that means?
how useful of them to explain that, i never learned that in the courses for my COMPUTER SCIENCE DEGREE. geeze.

If you knew your scientific history at all, you'd realise how important it was that Emilie du Chatelet showed that 'force = mass*velocity^2', contrary to the Newtonian belief.

There's a good overview of this programme (which is a good slice of popular science - I've already seen it on the UK's Channel Four) here: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/scien ce/nature/e=mc2.html

It has pretty pictures, for those of you with COMPUTER SCIENCE DEGREES.