BBC To Air First Televised Sperm Race

Reality TV by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-12 15:50 · Score: 1, Insightful

Where do we draw the line?

Re:Reality TV by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-12 16:07 · Score: 0

Sperm aren't considered dirty in very many contexts. We studied sperm in high school, even. So who cares if they're being raced? You? Don't watch then.

Wow.... by Afromelonhead · 2004-04-12 15:51 · Score: 3, Funny

I wonder where they're racing to?

--
Procrastination sucks.

Re:Wow.... by CheshireCatCO · 2004-04-12 15:57 · Score: 1

Same place sperm have been racing to for millions of years: an ovum.
Re:Wow.... by boisepunk · 2004-04-12 16:01 · Score: 0

replying to your sig -- yes, in this case it does suck. you want to get to the egg as fast as possible.

--
main(0)
Re:Wow.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-12 16:44 · Score: 0

I've moded my sperm and added nitrogen boosters. Simply put, I'd win against any of you mofos in a race.
Re:Wow.... by Suhas · 2004-04-12 19:45 · Score: 1

err...To the Tonsils?
Re:Wow.... by mbstone · 2004-04-13 05:38 · Score: 2, Funny

For this race, they have a mechanical ovum that goes around the track on a little rail. Howard Stern will do the play-by-play on the radio.

One of those uplifting thoughts... by Ieshan · 2004-04-12 15:56 · Score: 4, Funny

You know those times in life when you don't think you've won at anything, when everything is dim, when life seems like it can't get any worse...

Just remember.

You beat ALL those other sperm to the egg.

You won at something.

Re:One of those uplifting thoughts... by boisepunk · 2004-04-12 16:09 · Score: 4, Funny

Not to troll, but this is not entirely true. Only half of yourself ever did something. Not so encouraging now, is it?

--
main(0)
Re:One of those uplifting thoughts... by Compuser · 2004-04-12 17:57 · Score: 3, Funny

Unless you are a result of artificial insemenation...
Oh yeah: you insensitive clod!
Re:One of those uplifting thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-12 19:57 · Score: 0

I was conceived via artificial insemination, you insensitive clod!
Re:One of those uplifting thoughts... by WolfWithoutAClause · 2004-04-13 01:22 · Score: 1

You beat ALL those other sperm to the egg. You won at something.
And you're never going to win anything, ever again :-)

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:One of those uplifting thoughts... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · 2004-04-13 08:12 · Score: 1

Eh? Your father did that. You did nothing.

--
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.

CENTRIPETAL FORCE by viperstyx · 2004-04-12 15:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

i really hope they mean centripetal force...otherwise there wont be much educating goin on.

Re:CENTRIPETAL FORCE by momerath2003 · 2004-04-12 18:21 · Score: 0

Bah, centripetal force is just as fictional:

Centripetal force is a resultant force (since in circular motion an object undergoes constant acceleration). As used in most physics classes (etc.), it is introduced as a compensatory fictional force that makes a non-inertial frame of reference seem like an inertial one.

Centrifugal force is the counter-force to centripetal force, so it is fictional too. But it is the perceived force in one of those rotating things (I can't remember the name at the moment).

--
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
Re:CENTRIPETAL FORCE by Captain+Nitpick · 2004-04-12 18:41 · Score: 3, Informative

Centripetal force is a resultant force (since in circular motion an object undergoes constant acceleration). As used in most physics classes (etc.), it is introduced as a compensatory fictional force that makes a non-inertial frame of reference seem like an inertial one.

Centripetal force is real. If there was no centripetal force, there would be no acceleration, and the object in question would not follow a circular path. In the classic "bucket on a rope" example, the centripetal force on the bucket is applied by the rope.

Centrifugal "force" is not the counter-force to centripetal force, and indeed, can exist even in the absence of centripetal force.

--
But then again, I could be wrong.
Re:CENTRIPETAL FORCE by kidgenius · 2004-04-12 19:17 · Score: 2, Informative

Centripetal is a real force. It is the force from the body to the center of it's rotation. It's normal to the direction of travel.
Centrifugal force should be called by it's real name, which is easier to pronounce....inertia
Re:CENTRIPETAL FORCE by francium+de+neobie · 2004-04-12 20:00 · Score: 1

> Centripetal is a real force.

True, since you're accelerating, there's a net force on you.

> It is the force from the body to the center of it's rotation.

This can use some clarification.

It is the net force on the body towards the center of rotation. But the net force has to be contributed from somewhere, and that's usually not from the body itself.

e.g. when you're sitting in a centrifugal machine you're constantly accelerating towards to center of rotation. That is the net force on you. But indeed you didn't accelerate towards to center yourself, it is the seat on your back pushing you towards the center. So the force comes from the seat, not you.
Re:CENTRIPETAL FORCE by Spy+Hunter · 2004-04-12 22:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Good page defining centripetal, centrifugal, and coriolis forces and explaining the difference between them.
Here's the short explanation of why the centrifugal force is "imaginary": The centrifugal force is used only by people who are in rotating frames (for example: standing on the edge of a turntable) to explain why balls they drop tend to fall away from them instead of straight down. An observer who is not rotating needs no centrifugal force to explain this: the ball simply travels in a straight line after being released, while the person on the turntable moves in a curve. The centrifugal force is a convenient shortcut for people on the turntable because by using it they can assume they are at rest and still use Newtonian physics even though they are really rotating. (As the site explains, this also requires the use of the coriolis force to completely explain the motion of objects from the turntable perspective.)
The centripetal force is the force inward keeping the person on the turntable moving in a circle around the center instead of moving off in a straight line due to inertia. Both the person on the turntable and the observer can agree that this force exists; the person on the turntable can feel the acceleration. Therefore the centripetal force is "real" because everyone agrees it exists no matter what frame they're in.
At least here at Slashdot we can have some educating "goin on".

--
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Re:CENTRIPETAL FORCE by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · 2004-04-13 08:15 · Score: 1

Centrifugal force is no more imaginary that gravity. Since Einstein we've all had to get used to the idea that what you measure depends on your frame of reference. In a rotating frame centrifugal force passes every test for being a force. In fact, locally it's indistinguishable from gravity.
Gravity looks fictional to someone in freefall who can't feel a thing.

--
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Re:CENTRIPETAL FORCE by Spy+Hunter · 2004-04-13 09:31 · Score: 1

But you can always tell whether or not you're in a rotating frame. Centrifugal force is never necessary to explain the motion of objects because you can always just use a non-rotating frame. There is no analagous way to get rid of gravity; it is necessary to explain the movements of objects in space.

--
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Re:CENTRIPETAL FORCE by Tesla+Tank · 2004-04-13 15:08 · Score: 1

Centrifugal "force" is not the counter-force to centripetal force, and indeed, can exist even in the absence of centripetal force.

It can't "exist" because it's not a real force. Centrifugal is an apprent or imaginary force. It's easy to explain why we feel we're being pushed away from the centre of the arc with Centrifugal force, but that's not what really happens. Centripetal force is the force that's causing the object to constantly accelerate towards the centre. Since our body has an inertia, its tendency is to go in a straight line. However, the accleration of the car pushes our body towards the centre. Therefore, we feel a force pushing us to the car. However, to say that there's a force actually pushing us would be false. This is grade 12 physics. It saddens me to hear professional engineers using the word centrifugal.
Re:CENTRIPETAL FORCE by Captain+Nitpick · 2004-04-13 16:43 · Score: 1

It can't "exist" because it's not a real force.

I know that it's not real. But it can appear to exist when centripetal force does not exist.

--
But then again, I could be wrong.
Re:CENTRIPETAL FORCE by Tesla+Tank · 2004-04-14 09:45 · Score: 1

Are you still talking about uniform circular motion? I always thought a centripetal force must exist in uniforum circular motion.
Re:CENTRIPETAL FORCE by Captain+Nitpick · 2004-04-14 12:17 · Score: 1

Are you still talking about uniform circular motion? I always thought a centripetal force must exist in uniforum circular motion.

Centripetal force must exist in uniform circular motion. But centrifugal "force" does not require uniform circular motion in order to appear to exist, only a rotating reference frame.

--
But then again, I could be wrong.

And the winner gets... by azuroff · 2004-04-12 16:13 · Score: 5, Funny

...18 years of child support payments!

Re:And the winner gets... by Meneudo · 2004-04-14 04:09 · Score: 1

Not to mention bragging rights.

Damn, it'd be nice to have recognition for your sperm.

--
...

Mod Parent Up - Smart by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-12 16:26 · Score: 0

Darn, you beat me to it.

Gambling by jafuser · 2004-04-12 17:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

You know, somewhere, someone is taking bets on this...

--
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF

Re:Gambling by M1FCJ · 2004-04-12 19:43 · Score: 1

You must be kidding, of course they do. British will bet on anything.

Story Moderation: -1 Silly by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-12 17:59 · Score: 0

Post your story moderations in this thread.

what for? by Halfbaked+Plan · 2004-04-12 18:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

but wants to reach out to an audience that avoids educational shows.

Why? To get some raw ratings numbers? Why 'reach out' in this way? Is there some educational purpose they have in mind? If it's an educational program, and they do something 'spectacular' to get an audience, but cease in the process to be an educational program.... why?

--
resigned

Re:what for? by norton_I · 2004-04-12 18:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

The sperm race may be a gimmick, but it doesn't preclude educational content. There are lots of educational things you can put into a program centered around a sperm race. Also, it isn't necessarily stupid -- the characteristics that make sperm win races are almost certainly related to the probability of sucessful conception.

If an educational program loses its audience, it ceases to educate.
Re:what for? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-13 04:03 · Score: 0

Because that's one of the remits of the BBC. To educate. Whether the audience realises it or not.

BBC3 by Andy+Smith · 2004-04-12 18:55 · Score: 1

"BBC 3, a digital TV channel"

Also a mess of logos, branding and other on-screen, in-programme advertising junk. A channel that I pay for with my license fee but can't stand to watch because of the aforementioned distracting junk. A channel that I *must* pay for if I own a television, otherwise I'll go to jail. Yeah, I love BBC3.

Re:BBC3 by M1FCJ · 2004-04-12 19:48 · Score: 0

To put it simply: don't watch TV if you don't want to pay the TV tax. What really annoys me is the letters The Licensing Centre sends me. Do I have to prove that I don't have a TV? Does everyone must have a TV? No, radio and the net is good enough for me. If I want to watch a movie, I can always buy/rent a DVD.
When I watched TV, I preferred BBC channels to the other ones, just because they didn't have the ads. I would be happy to pay the licensing fee if I want ad-free TV. What I can't convince myself is if the licensing fee gets scrapped and BBC switches to pay-to-view scheme, will it be free of ads? I don't think so. Anyway, I believe once the analog TV gets phased out, there will be no free channels. Everything will be chargeable. I'm glad that I gave up on TV. I really don't miss it. The documentaries are incredibly dumbed down and there are only a few good ones on BBC and I can get those on DVD later.
Re:BBC3 by Andy+Smith · 2004-04-12 21:52 · Score: 1

And what do you watch those DVDs on? Your computer monitor? A dedicated non-TV display?

The quandary I'm in at the moment is that at the end of my current TV license I intend to stop watching television. There are many programmes that I want to watch but I have objections to some of the BBC's policies and therefore I will choose to no longer finance them.

The law, as it stands at the moment, is that if I stop funding the BBC then I am not allowed to watch any other channels either, so I will obey the law. I'm going to cancel Sky and have both the dish and aerial removed so it will be impossible for me to receive a TV signal.

But I still want to be able to watch DVDs on my widescreem TV. Doh! That will make me a criminal. Because the TV will theoretically be "capable of receiving a television signal" (because I could plug a portable aerial into it) I'll be legally obliged to pay for a TV license, even though I'll never watch television.

With an ethical, quality, viewer-oriented BBC, the licensing system was something that had my full support. But with today's BBC the licensing system is an unfair, out-dated disgrace.
Re:BBC3 by Gossy · 2004-04-12 22:05 · Score: 4, Informative

But I still want to be able to watch DVDs on my widescreem TV. Doh! That will make me a criminal. Because the TV will theoretically be "capable of receiving a television signal" (because I could plug a portable aerial into it) I'll be legally obliged to pay for a TV license, even though I'll never watch television.

You'll be glad to hear then that you're wrong. :)

Remove the aerial, detune the TV (just reset the channel data), and notify the TV Licensing guys. Tell them your TV is only being used for DVDs/games and you then you don't have to pay. This info hidden away on the TVL site somewhere, and it's what I did.

They emailed me back to say they'd come round and check (they haven't), and that i'd be noted in the database so they don't send me letters demanding I pay up.
Re:BBC3 by M1FCJ · 2004-04-12 22:12 · Score: 1

I have a 19" VDU which is more than enough for my purposes. I live alone and this screen is large enough for my purposes. Some people would buy a huge plasma/LCD but I think there is no good reason to buy these for my purposes. Obviously you have a different situation.
AFAIK (and IANAL) as long as your TV is not capable of receiving TV input you are alright. This covers RGB and composite inputs. If you don't have a tuner this means you don't have a receiver. Licensing Centre licenses receivers and these cover TV cards (I gave mine away as I did with the TV when I moved out. Previously the place I lived had a TV license and I had my share of boxes. First I gave my TV away, then I moved out and gave my TV card away as well).
I don't know how much these widescreen TVs are modifiable. If you rip the tuner stage apart, then you don't have a device which is capable of TV reception. I'm not sure you want to do that.
Compared to BSkyB and other commercial sattellite channels, TV license is pretty cheap but I just don't like watching TV anymore. It is not an objection of the policies of BBC or any other channel. I lost interest. For 25 years I watched TV, for the last two years I haven't and I realised that I haven't lost anything. I have more time for myself. I do other things and enjoy myself. For entertainment purposes I found radio channels are much better than a TV. I also own a DAB radio and the reception quality is superb. I have more time to read books and spend on my hobbies. I reccomend giving up TV to everyone.
One thing though, since I stopped watching TV, I found myself an oddity. People stare at me when they mention a TV programme and I respond saying "sorry mate, I don't own one, I haven't seen what you are talking about, what the heck is this 'get me out of here, I'm a celebrity' thing you are talking about?". I never realised TV was such an important thing in people's life. It is a mark of your status, how large your TV screen is, how good your VCR/TiVo is. I don't care about these so I'm the odd one out. Giving up TV cannot be advised for sociable people. :-)
On the other hand, I managed to miss most of the horrors, I'm a celebrity series, Most of the Big Brothers, all these cooking and makeover shows, these pop idol rubbish... The only thing I miss is Attenborough's good nature documentaries. Luckily most of these are available on DVD if I like to watch them.
Re:BBC3 by jazman · 2004-04-13 00:37 · Score: 1

TV Licence is an inaccurate name. Check the back of the licence; the truth, as usual, is in the small print. I can't remember what it says exactly, but the licence allows you to receive broadcast signals. You don't need a licence to have the ability to receive broadcast signals, only actually to receive them. So technically you don't even need to detune your telly, but if you did voluntarily undergo a TV inspection (which you don't have to), they might try to argue that since you have only unplugged the aerial you could have been watching. TV inspectors rely on confessions to convict, so even if you have been watching, insist on seeing what evidence they have before fessing up. TV detector vans are apparently a huge fraud - if they weren't, there should be at least one case that was prosecuted on detector van evidence alone. Let me know if you find one. Google for "BBCResistance" for more info.
Re:BBC3 by isorox · 2004-04-13 00:40 · Score: 1

I do have a TV License (be a bit hypocritical if I didn't, working at the BBC and all), but they still send me letters complaining. They have no right to enter your property without a search warrent and police officers, or your permission.
Re:BBC3 by Gid1 · 2004-04-13 01:10 · Score: 1

When I moved, I ditched my 46" TV and digital cable for a 3" black and white portable, the idea being that if a TV is battery powered, it doesn't need to be licenced (well, that's the gist of it. It's more complex than that.) I have a 15" LCD (Apple Studio Display) for my PS2 for watching DVDs and playing games.

I've found that although I was watching 6-8 hours a day of TV, I now watch about 1 hour a month, and that's when I'm staying with friends, and I don't miss it in the slightest.

There's about one show that was on BBC which I missed: 24. Since the third season is on Sky, I now just use BitTorrent, and will buy the DVDs when they come out.

The license fee is a regressive tax, that was appropriate while the BBC was still a public service broadcaster, as opposed to an over-commercialised 600-pound gorilla. TV Licencing are a bunch of authoritarian bullies. I've also written a rather lengthy note on this issue to bbccharterreview@culture.gsi.gov.uk, in the hope that the BBC's upcoming charter review by the government might do some good.

Well, almost... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-12 19:39 · Score: 0

You beat ALL those other sperm to the egg.

You won at something.

I'd say that only half of you won at something.

Decadent western society and SF by M1FCJ · 2004-04-12 19:40 · Score: 0, Flamebait

If I were to read this on an SF book, I wouldn't believe it. Now I seriously start to think that western society has decayed enough to be really really silly. First Big Brother craze, then this.

Does this mean wanking is a sport from now on??

Re:Decadent western society and SF by francium+de+neobie · 2004-04-12 20:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

I don't get it, why is it considered a "decay" when people watch sperms race to see what kind of lifestyle affects reproductivity? They've applied scientific method to a useful goal, I don't see anything wrong with it.

I would actually consider public acceptance to this event as an advancement. It is good that people see sex as a norm of life now instead of an embargo in the past.
Re:Decadent western society and SF by M1FCJ · 2004-04-12 21:11 · Score: 1

It's just what we enjoy: pure nonsense. It is as meaningful as gladiators fighting or watching snails race. I can make up a case for gladiators but snails or sperms?
Re:Decadent western society and SF by Daemonic · 2004-04-15 23:16 · Score: 1

It's just what we enjoy: pure nonsense.
I think it's an experiment to see what environmental factors influence motility. Anyone thinking of starting a family might be interested to learn what methods exist to improve their chances.

Racetrack? by kzadot · 2004-04-12 19:42 · Score: 2, Funny

Which lucky lady gets to donate the "racetrack"?

Re:Racetrack? by Raynach · 2004-04-13 00:14 · Score: 1

I don't know, but the guy who gets sloppy seconds is giving the other guy a head start.

--
- A
Re:Racetrack? by mroch · 2004-04-13 12:23 · Score: 1

"It will be filmed inside two tiny glass tubes by a microscope and relayed to a crowd watching a pub's big screen."

Where's the excitement in that?

Here we go again. by caffeinated_bunsen · 2004-04-12 20:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Centrifugal force is a perfectly reasonable topic for discussion, since quite a few people seem a bit fuzzy - or just plain wrong - about the idea (see other replies).

To set the record straight: A "centripetal" force is any force that causes an object to move in a circular path. When swinging something on a rope, the centripetal force is the tension in the rope. With orbiting planets, the centripetal force is gravity.

"Centrifugal force" is a fictional force invented to allow one to use Newton's laws in a rotating frame of reference (they only work properly in inertial frames, i.e. those which are neither accelerating nor rotating). It is NOT a reaction to a centripetal force - the object in question doesn't have to be moving in a circle. Let me clarify this: Say you're sitting on a merry-go-round cross-bred with an air hockey table. If you drop a puck on the (nearly frictionless) surface, what happens next depends on how fast the table is rotating. If it's not rotating, the puck sits there - the table is an inertial frame of reference in this case, so Newton's laws work without modification. If it is rotating, you'll see the puck slide toward the edge in a curved path. Somebody standing on the ground next to the table sees the puck slide in a straight line, as one would expect. But since you're sitting in a rotating reference frame, and you really like Newton's laws, you have to invent a reason to explain why the puck slides away. If you're a historically accurate dumbass, you'll call it centrifugal force.

There's actually no force involved (it's just inertia viewed from a screwed-up reference frame), so it's preferable to call it 'centrifugal acceleration.' Since acceleration is always frame-dependent, while forces supposed to be frame-independent, this term leads to somewhat less confusion and similarly fewer ignorant slashdot posts. Similar logic applies to the Coriolis effect (which the guy sitting on the table says is the reason the puck's path curves).

--

Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!

Re:One of those uplifting thoughts x2 by MachDelta · 2004-04-12 20:23 · Score: 4, Funny

Oh pshaw. You're looking at it all wrong:

Half of you won a foot (er.. tail?) race against millions of other competetors.
The other half of you repelled a simultaneous attack by those same millions of loosers (kinda like the burly brawl in the Matrix).

You're equal parts Olympic 100m sprint Gold Medalist and World Champion Kickboxer.
Whats not to be proud of?

Is it a new game show? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-12 20:49 · Score: 0

Im a sperm, get me in there?

It's not the first televised sperm race by Gary+Destruction · 2004-04-12 20:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

They've never seen the movie "Look who's talking"

is the urr.. "donating" included in the race? by naph · 2004-04-12 21:21 · Score: 1

would quality pr0n be considered an unfair advantage?
:D

--
"if i'd known it was harmless, i'd have killed it myself"

Re:Story Moderation: +1 Funny by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-13 03:55 · Score: 0

PD...get a life... or at least a sense of humor

Cheating? by bcattwoo · 2004-04-13 09:25 · Score: 3, Funny

My wife helps me with my time trials at home, but I often get called for *ahem* "false starts".

LIARS!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-14 17:44 · Score: 0

for starters, im not a coward just too lazy to make an account

AND THESE PEOPLE ARE LIARS they have already had a sperm race on Jackass AND the man show

so this is not the FIRST televised sperm race, it is the THIRD

Less than half... by FuzzyDaddy · 2004-04-16 04:09 · Score: 1

Half the nuclear genetic material. Mitochondrial DNA comes just from your mother, so the male genetic contribution is a little less than half.

--
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.

Slashdot Mirror

BBC To Air First Televised Sperm Race

60 comments