BBC To Air First Televised Sperm Race

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BBC To Air First Televised Sperm Race

Posted by timothy on Monday April 12, 2004 @03:46PM from the reality-teevee dept.

weekendwarrior1980 writes "BBC 3, a digital TV channel in the UK, is televising a race involving the sperm of presenters Dr Mike Leahy and Zeron Gibson. The sperm race will be part of the educational Lab Rats series. Gibson is a comedian and Leahy is a scientist. The network considers this a 'creative risk' but wants to reach out to an audience that avoids educational shows. The show will be broadcasted on April 15th at 2330 BST. Future shows will examine sleep deprivation and centrifugal force."

20 of 60 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

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

I wonder where they're racing to?

--
Procrastination sucks.
1. 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.
1. 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)
2. 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!
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.
1. 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.
2. 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
3. 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?" `":" #");}
And the winner gets... by azuroff · 2004-04-12 16:13 · Score: 5, Funny

...18 years of child support payments!
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
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
1. 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.
Racetrack? by kzadot · 2004-04-12 19:42 · Score: 2, Funny

Which lucky lady gets to donate the "racetrack"?
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.
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?
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"
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.
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".