Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Science Television: Does Joe Public Care?

Posted by michael on from the mr.-wizard dept.

AVIDJockey writes "Wired News has an article about a new science television network. As someone who is a fan of TV shows that lack a shiny veneer of stupid, such as those found on UWTV, UCTV and ResearchChannel, I've wondered if hard science or technology programming will ever catch on with the general public. What do you think?"

5 of 423 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Yes by dotwaffle · · Score: 4, Informative

    A perfect example of this is the Spoof Science Series "Look Around You" which was on the BBC a couple years back (series two filming now...) which would not have been anywhere near as good without the narrator. If anyone wants a copy, and by copy I don't mean BitTorrent, then Amazon and other retailers have the DVD of series 1. It WILL make you laugh if you grew up with crappy science programmes like I did :) Enjoy...

  2. Re:95% is below average? by rk · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, that's possible. "Average" is not terribly specific, but the mean is a form of average and you can have 95% be below the mean. Consider these data points: 1,2,3,1,4,3,5,1,7,2,6,6,3,2,1,6,1,5,3,100. What's the mean? 8.1. What percent of data values are below the mean? 95%. The same thing would occur if you have 19 values of 99 and one of 100 (The mean is 99.95, but 19 of 20 is below it).

    Now, there are other averages (mode, median, and range come to mind, and ISTR something about "upper and lower whiskers" but stats was LOOONG ago), and one would have to question a data set with one value way out of whack with the rest of the data, but you can have a 95% of things are below average if you have a weird distribution of data.

    It's unrealistic, but there's nothing inherent to the definition of average that precludes it.

  3. Re:I learned all the science I need to know... by shirai · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can Sciend and fun be put together? The answer in Two Words:

    Myth Busters

    --
    Sunny

    Be my Friend

  4. Anything can be interesting, by gidds · · Score: 3, Informative
    It just needs to be approached in the right way.

    To take your example: if you present Fourier transforms as a series of integrals, then it might not be too interesting. But as a way of moving between time and frequency domains, they're something we use without knowing it all the time.

    Your inner ear effectively does Fourier transforms! It takes a sound wave in, and has tiny hairs that vibrate at different frequencies, each one triggering a different nerve impulse. Similarly, the spectrum analyser, tone controls or graphic equaliser on your hi-fi system are working in the frequency domain. Piano keyboards, radio tuners, synthesisers, and many other things are all concerned with Fourier transforms and their effects. Most of use think of sound in the frequency domain!

    Even if you restrict yourself to the mathematics, they underpin MP3 and pretty much all forms of audio compression; JPEG, MPEG and many forms of graphic compression; the circuitry behind CD players (those digital filters), and so on.

    I'm sure a good director could come up with a really fascinating programme about them!

    --

    Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

  5. Re:We HAD one, damnit. by connorbd · · Score: 3, Informative

    Mythbusters has it all -- two geeks, skepticism, science, folklore, and stuff blowin up real good.