Slashdot Mirror
Science Television: Does Joe Public Care?
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?"
...from Star Trek.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Before it became the Discover Motorcycles Channel
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Thats why Star Trek is so popular. It has nothing based on science, but says that it is, and has good special effects.
IF the program is compered by the like of late Feynmaann or late Carl Sagan. One of the thing that attract people to scince is the style of narrator. A good narrator can spell bind you to the beauty of cosmo, scince.
"shiny veneer of stupid..."
Then you wouldn't be watching the Presidential debates, would you?
Seriously. Why would it catch on when intelligent people are in a minority on this planet?
I stopped tuning in when it became the Discover Gay Men's Taste in Decoration Channel.
there is a channel that is soley devoted to really boring science. One day I saw a dude doing Fourier transforms on TV, another molecular bio, and yet another they were talking about software engineering.
But then again, at the same time, I didn't think I could see anything dumber on Japanese TV than I did on American, but boy was I wrong....
Monstar L
Science and the knowledge of it is a threat to those in power. Those in power are pretty much setting an example for how people should live their lives. So I would say no, it is unlikely that a great thirst for the knowledge of science will happen very soon.
...Beakman's World when Josie left. And yes, physically-speaking, I'm an adult.
Seriously, though, I agree... as amusing as some shows are, I can only discover so much about custom choppers before I realize I don't care.
American Chopper was funny for a season or two, but now it is almost a parody of itself.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
But does she really have to? I mean, does Joe Public care whether Perl is better that Pythin or vice versa? Of course not! But Real Programmers care, and that is what really matters. Likewise with science, philosophy, religion, art etc. Some people care, and for those few it is worth doing.
Honestly, people do like the Discovery Channel and hearing about "Mysteries of the Universe". Topics which can grab people's attention include:
- Explaining Nuclear Space Propulsion Methods
- Investigate Red Mercury, whether it exists, and its potential uses
- Explain how Fission and Fusion actually work
- Explain Relativity, String Theory, etc. (Oh wait, someone did that.)
- Investigate the Ancient Vimanas
The secret to making these subjects interesting is to place them in the context of the common person. Lay low on the mathematics, and go heavy on the computer graphics.
As long as the public isn't hearing the same 50 year old science AGAIN (look, it's a Saturn V), they'll be interested.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I've always found science fun and interesting, though I am not Joe Public.
I enjoyed watching TLC before it was all "OMFG! Trading Spaces is on!" However, it was a whole lot of reruns on things they did before. Like Shark Week always seemed to be the same. And the dinosaur special. And the.. well, pretty much all the sciencey stuff.
Discovery Channel wasn't so bad, but then they deviated from hard science to other things.
If I had two good science channels, I'd get cable. Until that time, I'm content with Google. ^_^
"their goal is to produce the C-SPAN ... of science"
Sure-fire recipe for success!
Lets hope this gets off the ground quickly! I am for anything that will off set the vacuum of intellect that my local cable company provides. Can I please get something other than Sports and another women's network?
I am already a fan of the Discovery Science channel - however it needs a better programming - but I'm not complaining! At least it's something.
I am still in disbelief of what happened over at TechTV...
Instead of raising your voice, try strengthening your argument.
If it can be made into a date rape drug, or something that will harden his member, then Joe Public will be all over it. 95% of the population is of (counts on fingers for a bit...) below-average intelligence. So that means there's only 5% of the population that can bitch about the rest of the population on Slashdot. And of course, I'm in that 5% that's of above-average intelligence. Right?
But seriously. If you like hard science... don't go to television to find it. Television is all about branding dumbed down entertainment as something it isn't. Science. Law. Journalism. Even shows that are about dumb topics (like bikini babe lifeguards) aren't realistic in any sense of the word.
fifth sigma, inc.
Not to sound like a horrible pessimist, but I think this channel would have a great deal of trouble if it were Nation wide. For far too long, science has become stigmitized by popular culture, and the education system, into being something regarded as work. It's too bad that when people watch TV and see something that tries to show them how beautiful the world is, their eyes gloss over.
Of course, I am generalizing a lot of people in the US. But Americans don't place as much emphasis on science and mathematics anymore. Unlike during the Cold War, where science was encouraged to kids (to beat the Russians), science today has become another class you have to take for your report cards. I don't think people would want to bring what they regard as work into their vegetative times.
Another problem I see with the youth today is that they tell themselves "Math is hard. Science is hard." If they keep telling themselves that, how would they ever watch a channel devoted to it? There's a horrible self-fulfilling prophecy at work. It doesn't help that the popular culture likes to impress onto kids that being bad in math or science is something to be proud of.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
After getting fed up with the type of things I see just on random channel flipping, I decided to get rid of my television for good. That was around 5 months ago, and now I don't even miss it. I did feel funny the first few weeks though. When I sat down on my couch, I would look around and feel like something was missing. Now though, it seems unnatural to think about plopping down on the couch and starting at a TV for a couple of hours.
Of course, I have no children. With kids, it may be more difficult to go without it.
The Science Channel is available on DirecTV. Watched a decent show a couple weeks ago on the science that goes into the construction of a new house and it's materials. Actually made watching paint dry interesting :p
Michalangelo Progr
A hard science show that delves into the minutia of the matter, the math, the statistics, the detailed physics or chemistry, is not going to be enjoyable for anyone other than those already in the know.
I am of above average intelligence (however slightly). It isn't that I want to still watch Mr. Wizards World, but I also don't want to follow a statistics lecture, or inherently understand some anscillary chemical reaction, before I learn about a new technology.
My sister, doctorate in chemistry in hand, will not see the same utility in, and will, in fact be quite bored with, a chemistry show that holds my interest. I, on the flip side, wouldn't be able to follow a chemistry program that she would enjoy.
Where do you draw the line of "veneer of stupidity"? I think that is the question that needs to be asked, and the problem that needs to be solved.
I admittadly could be wrong, but judging by what is written about the first show in Wired, it looks like they have a political agenda right out of the gate which leans left. I hope they present all sides of the debate equally.
Hard science hasn't caught on, so hard science programming won't either, though programming labled hard science might, if it wasn't hard or science.
See what I've been reading.
We here on ./ care, so I guess the answer is "No".
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
They'd rather watch people eat bugs and animal entrails on "'Fear Factor".
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
Note my examples: both current topics and historically significant figures and subjects would be equally welcome. It would be cheap, too, and far more likely to glue me to the TV than, say, COPS or M*A*S*H reruns.
I think my demographic is just too small, though. Otherwise it would already be there -- it would be so cheap to do a good job of it, and there's so much potential material available. I suspect they need source material that not only draws advertisers but spawns action figures and other marketable materials, and pi-mesons and sorting algorithms just don't fit the bill.
This is the same public that watches Survivor? Reality TV gets all the ratings? Heck, even Sci Fi gets cancelled. I doubt they care.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
If you look at things like the movie industry, as of late, you will notice that they also have a heavy shellac of stupid. I think this is so people can relate better in the sense of a wider audenence. So my answer is no. To vast of our popluation here ake up that "shiny veneer of stupid."
you may or may not agree but hey at least i got to use the word shellac.
I keep hoping that science and tech related programming will catch on so that I can work on it. (At the moment I edit network reality TV). PBS does not do enough programming (and has little money) TechTv never really matured, then died an early death. Discovery and its TLC relatives get interesting but ultimately service a very broad viwership.
.02
I want my NicheTV!
Give me "/. tv" or "The 2600Club"
Just my
Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard disk?
No. Television is programmed for the lowest common denominator because what they want is sheer numbers of eyeballs, not the quality of the brain residing behind the eyeballs.
Of course, television is slowly learning to rue the day that all they have left is the LCD because anyone with an iota of smarts is out playing on the Internet anyway.
Just a matter of time before I can just pick up the remote, find which category and specific type of program I want to watch, choose which episode/installment, and there I go.
If Joe Public cared about getting hardcore about science and/or technology, then Joe Public would have studied it in college, where the overwhelming majority studies Liberal Arts like History, PoliSci etc.. And most people I know (all to be honest) don't turn on the tube to learn something, they turn it on to relax. The reason programs like PBS Astronomy shows do decently well is that they skim the surface and make it more glamorous.
What do you think will happen when someone plops a math formula across the screen?
This also serves to remind us that no one can be Billy Badass in 100 different areas (unless you're Vin Diesel). A viewer may have a PHd. in Chemistry but not know much about designing embedded software. He turns the TV on, sees this show, and realizes that he can only spend about an hour (2 hours tops) on this topic, and thus decides it isn't worth it because the program is narrow and deep. He changes the channel.
The answer isn't, "No, only idiots watch TV", although that may be the cool answer. I'm not a *complete* moron and even I've been put in a situation where I ended up watching Friends with my wife. Dear god why did I admit that....
the same number of people who are interested in science as public policy, especially where the two meet.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
As the number of channels grow, the niches that a channel can focus on profitably grow smaller, allowing channels to choose programming that isn't dumbed down to the least common denominator. Someday with video on demand we'll be able to watch linear algebra proofs 24-7 if we want.
Will our program, or this new network, become multi-million viewer blockbuster events? Probably not. But they can give people the background to understand some of what they hear on the nightly news, or at least to know what kind of questions to ask. And that's never a bad thing in my book.
No the general population doesn't care, and they probaly won't.
But this doesn't matter, a strong enough demand will make it profitable to supply something that isn't mainstream.
Linux users didn't use to be a strong enough group to pull in lots of commercial software, now there are a variety of products, from games to large commercial packages.
Same thing with TV, when they realize they can make a profit broadcasting science, they'll do it.
I don't think the average person really knows what Science is, let alone thinks they can understand it. At the most they want a flashy "look what those wacky nerds have thought up now" type show, that reassures them they are not too smart - since in many ways our society teaches us that being too smart is bad for you.
Science shows with any serious information in them are of necessity confined to that miniscule percentage of the population that has a clear conception of what Science really is, and doesn't just think of it as some type of advanced magic.
Besides most people seem to watch TV as some form of mindless soporiphic, not as a tool to educate them. Look at the rise of so-called Reality TV (which is of course only real in the sense that its less scripted/more adlib and has lower production values), does that bode well for a Science channel? As society evolves, we just keep getting stupider and we are learning to accept that as okay.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
I been pretty happy with The OU and MythTV for a while now. Not sure if you can get OU in the states though.
It's not big, but it's clever!
This is an extremely popular TV show, which now runs three times a week (the Las Vegas original, Miami, and the brand new New York series). Each show focuses on the scientific gathering of evidence to catch criminals. This includes explanations, with heavy computer graphics.
It's not that the public doesn't care about science. It's that the public wants Drama. Drama with science works great, it's the dry science only stuff that fails.
Bye,
Ori
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Am I the only one who finds nearly everything said here rather elitist and rude? This attitude of"only we Slashdotters are smart and cultured enough to appreciate science programming. The general public is too stupid, uninterested, and incapable of understanding it." It's utter nonsense.
It is possible to have self-confidence and be proud of your achievements without assuming that everyone else is a blathering idiot. Putting down everyone else makes you a smaller, not a bigger person.
People like science, and will watch anything they can grasp. If a channel not only dedicates itself to presenting truly in-depth scientific shows, but also brings them up-to-date on the background science that leads to it and can give people reasons why it is useful science, they will watch.
One of the reasons people keep watching the same kinds of shows they do on the Discovery channel is that the topics are usually that which they have the background on already and so can grasp. I watched Cosmos when it originally aired during my first year of high school, and I had only the barest inkling of the topics he covered, but Sagan presented each episode in a way that helped me get up to speed quickly on what he was talking about before he fed out the hard science. In effect, making it all pretty easy science.
A hard science channel won't succeed if it's not willing to get people up to speed on the topics like that. If you want a channel that just dumps hard data on people's laps that they have no background information on, no, I don't think it will succeed.
NOVA is still pretty good. Unfortunately, PBS is being taken over by Antiques Roadshow.
One thing I don't get about PBS: during pledge drives, they largely scrap their normal programming and instead show the Umpteen Tenors, Yanni at the Hellmouth, Woodstock, Peter Paul And Mary's Dialysis Concert, and other aging boomer dreck.
It's like a completely different network, which bears no resemblance to their usual offerings. One which offers people with scientific interests no reason to contribute money.
Then, when the pledge drive is over, they go back to normal.
It's bizarre. Public radio doesn't do that, really. They play mostly their normal programs, so there's still a reason to listen.
What PBS *should* do is run a NOVA marathon. And other marathons of science/nature programs.
The answer might be similar. As well as the answer to the question...should we care?
With the cyberthalamus, the singularity will happen.
And this doesn't mean that those who chose not to be viewers of such a channel are "dumb". The truth is that a lot of people - really intelligent people for that matter - don't particularly find subject matter that leads to a lot of thinking an appealing use of the time where they don't have to. A lot of people are under a lot of stress, between work, jobs, family, etc.; and don't want to do a lot of extra mental heavy lifting in their leisure time.
The other thing is that, for many people, hard science is difficult. This, again, doesn't necessarily mean that they're dumb; just that they've gone through life without having a good education about science. Call it a problem with the education system, or the way many children are raised, but the sad truth is many people just don't 'get' science.
So will it be a mainstream success? If I were a gambling man, I'd almost certainly say no, mostly for the reasons outlined above. But I don't think that high ratings is the point of putting together a hard science channel; rather the point is to attract a core demographic of people who are interested. And, assuming that the channel can find advertisers who are willing to pay a premium for people who spend their leaisure time thinking about hard science, it can be a success.
http://amishthrasher.blogspot.com/
For those who haven't heard about the G4 takeover (gutting?) of TechTV, what basically happened is that Comcast bought the channel and put the CEO of the underperforming G4 network in charge. Thus, most of the staff of TechTV was fired, including a large chunk of hosts, and the remaining ones were moved to Los Angeles and given pay cuts. The only tech show that remains is The Screen Savers, which has been turned into a joke. They replaced the main host with a loud talking guy with no TV experience and with little background in computers besides a CS degree. Then, they cut the real "tech" content in half, replacing it with game reviews, game promotions, game giveaways, chit chatting, and Mac smashing. And to top it all off, they override the first 3 minutes of the show with videogame hockey highscores. They basically bought TechTV just for the distribution.
Also, it is evident that they don't treat their employees near as well as TechTV did. Since the first day of the takeover, when they were still in San Fransisco, the hosts seemed very very unsure of themselves. Before, they were quite confident - before their coworkers started getting the ax and themselves shoved around and forced to relocate with 30 days notice. Now, they seem much more uptight. They are actually having censors bleep out bad words coming from the hosts now - not just the callers (as they have with other G4 shows for quite some time) and the energy is gone. However, the show cannot be said to be anything but energetic, as the new host has enough energy to power an entire city.
Back in the 50s, TV was going to be the innovation to herald a new era of education, enlightenment, and completely new entertainment. It never really achieved any of that. Most of TV's history has been political agenda-making, or brainless crap (and often both).
I don't see what would make it change now. Just look at the direction the internet has been going for the last decade.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
betting on the lack of good taste that the "common man" has.
I'd love to have a hard core science channel on free to air (as opposed to cable / pay TV), but will have to make do with the occasional paper copy of new scientist or scientific american.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World" 1 John 4:14
Get thee to a statistics class!
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
...compelling speaker, even if his subjects are dry or a bit shallow. i was fortunate enough to see him speak in seattle.
his 'connections' series are ok, but his 'day the universe changed' was far better (sadly its not available on vhs or dvd anywhere).
sadly they all pale to sagan's 'cosmos' series. the subject matter was sweeping and grand, and sagan's presentation was spellbinding.
There are shows out there that are science based, but how many people watch them?
Nova has been around for ages, as has Nature. Both are excellent shows, but what kind of audience do they have? Sadly, not enough. Even with such excellent programs as this: The Elegant Universe. (Note, you need to downgrade your version of quicktime if it is new to view it due to a quicktime bug. I reccomend the full screen version BTW.)
Up here in Canada I have been watching The Nature of Things for as long as I can remember. We also get Quirks and Quarks on CBC radio, which is actually quite popular up here. (I reccomend downloading some episodes in MP3. Jay Ingram from Daily Planet used to host this show.)
So, there are good shows out there for such a network, but the question becomes, would people watch? I know I would, hell, I would subscribe to a cable channel of that nature in an instant. However, as it is, I use my ATI All-In-Wonder and the PVR software that came with it to record and play back these shows, so I have a "custom" science channel of my own.
Michael Schermer has been working towards this for some time: as shown here.
I think though, that one VITAL thing to add would be along the lines of what Schermer already does (and the Mythbusters TV show does to some degree as well): Teach Joe Sixpack the nature of scientific thinking, specifically critical thinking as outlined in Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark. Once more people begin to understand this concept, they will likely become more open to scientific televison, well, that is what I hope for anyhow.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
You're asking this about a viewing public that thinks The Swan, Fear Factor, and Switching Mommies are the paramount of real TV.
Programs that actually involve thinking and heaven forbid - perhaps learning will be about as popular as math class was, to these same people, in school.
The only ones to watch would be the ones who would just as well read on the same topics.
Television that informs? What a silly idea!
If the Science presented can be backed up with some more things to be explored(at the viewer's convenience), then the user has ways to continue stop feeling stupid. Then the really interested user can make progress along time.
These days, "people" (meaning "people in general" not "the people I know") couldn't care less about science unless it affects them directly, and even then they are only interested in the effect (especially if it's frightening), not in the science. Science programming that isn't announcing an asteroid heading toward the Earth has to be watered down to pure amusement level or only geeks will watch it. That's why cars, motorcycles and home remodeling dominate Discovery Channel and TLC now.
Anyway, since you mentioned nuclear propulsion and the Saturn V, here is a long and fascinating article about a nuclear powered rocket the size of a Saturn V. Fully reusable and emitting no radiation, it would lift 1000 tons of payload into Earth orbit and return with 1000 tons of cargo to a powered landing. If they made a show about that, it would have to focus on the rocket's potential to haul up entire space hotels and recreational facilities.
...to the sea of stupid, we won't see this kind of thing catch on at all. Before shows like this can become popular, we have to make sure that intelligence is something that is pushed as being positive in popular culture. Right now, being stupid is what's seen as being cool. My wife read something last week that said that in England, the person that most boys idolize after Beckham is... Stephen Hawking. What do you want to bet that in the U.S. it's Kidd Rock or Eminem?
Un-news
If you really have an abiding interest in "hard science," (which I take to mean the nitty-gritty details) go back to school.
There is plenty of room on cable for niche TV shows, and as long as it is popular enough to stay on the air it can be successful. Society as a whole will benefit as long as those who are intelligent enough to be understand the shows and inspired enough to go into one of the sciences watch it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
..., no matter how few, it's a good thing.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
When I was a kid I tried to catch every single episode of Mr. Wizard. I doubt if Mr. Wizard ever got very good ratings and I'm pretty sure he never caught on with the general public. But the grandfatherly scientist (or was he really an engineer?) sure caught on with one geeky kid starving for science and technology programming on TV. Now I have a bachelors in computer engineering and a (hopefully, if I don't get outsourced) life-long love of science. I still recall important lessons I learned from Mr. Wizard, like the limitations on how high a vacuum pump can pump water, or the rigidity of a rod vs. a tube.
Besides, there are lots of specialty networks nowadays that probably will never catch on with the general public. Like Speed or Outdoors. Why does this network have to be any different? As long as a few geeks get something out of it, it's worthwhile.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
Science were presented by big busted women in bikinis dangling precariously from a bridge by a single strand of dental floss.
Outside of that I really can't see the American Consumer going for this one. Remember these are the SAME people that bought "Pet Rocks" and Brittany Spears albums!
I think a good source of Science television is good for children and adults alike.
For children, it inspires.
For adults, it explains really cool things in layman's terms.
I watch The Science Channel all the time... well, when the wife lets me have the clicker.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
Well, Discovery Canada manages to hang onto the science aspect by a thread.
Daily Planet, the former "@discovery.ca", is on every day at 7pm and 11pm.
I know at one point the show was repackaged for the US, but I don't know what happened with it.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
I sure hope so, but I think the Discovery channel can show that the truth is a solid 'no.'
What once was a network with good science-based shows, news programs and such, has been diminished to a pathetic pseudo-fox with all its fabrication garbage shows.
Anyway, we'll see. I'll watch it if it goes on air.
When a science show says "We've figured out how to make a jet engine," I tend to think "Good, then they don't need my help."
That was the plan but it's not the reality. TV is now the opium of the masses, not the teaching tool it was intended to be.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Until Comcast ruined TechTV with their annoyingly mindless G4 drivel. The quality of the programming on G4TechTV is hopelessly pathetic. Many of the great shows they did have on there have been dumped for reruns of Arena, Filter and PLayers.
Also, the majority of people who made the original TechTV worth watching have already jumped ship.
Who knows... maybe if were lucky, the Discovery channel will create it's own version of what TechTV once was... but for now, the outlook is pretty grim.
8==8 Bones 8==8
That is unless they blow lots of things up like Adam and Jamie do on Mythbusters.
I doubt any kind of hard science channel will take off. Joe Public doesn't like to think. He just wants to be passively entertained.
Look at how far downhill the programming on TLC has gone. Shows that were mildly entertaining on BBC are highly irritating on that channel. Shows like Trading Spaces and such fill their daily programming now, and not because management there "guesses" people will watch.
Outside of academia and industries that have hard sciences as their backbone, people are pretty damned stupid. Seriously. Joe Public is an idiot and will do whatever it takes to keep from having to think too hard. Joe Public seems to have enough sense to keep himself alive for 70 some odd years and little drive to pick up any more knowledge.
You been thinkin' son?
Yeah, but I don't think I'm thunk.
You've got an easy breezy wind at your back...most of the time.
There is no such thing as Joe Public. There is no such thing as the "general public."
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
I've watched two episodes of Mythbusters, one about tree cannons and how they could be built in a night, and next how much gun powder it would take to blow up the cannon consisting of a huge log with a gun hole.
:)
The other was about tricking the alcohol meter, so basically they got drunk and acted up. I wouldn't call it science.
Take off every 'ZIG' !!
About 30 years ago BBC Radio started an evening program Mon-Fri, billed as covering current news in the Arts & Sciences. But because the BBC was filled with arty types, and (back then) many scientists were not good communicators, the arty types soon took over the whole thing, so the 50:50 arts/sciences split became 95:5 So let's forgo the glitz and have some substance, and to hell with the ratings.
Those of us with an interest in science, engineering or technology can help by pointing out to others that "Yes, we need artists & poets to point in some new directions and to distil the deeper meanings, but without the sciences etc we'd all be in poverty or dead".
Last weekend the American Science Channel was doing a classic Science shows marathon, with "The Secret Life of Machines," "The Ascent of Man", "The Day the Universe Changed," and Walter Cronkite's "The 21st Century" from the 1960s.
I put in a season pass for for the first three on the TiVo.
"The Day the Universe Changed" is current enough that I had already watched most of it on my TiVo.
It occurred to me that I actually have the complete "Ascent of Man" buried somewhere on VHS tapes that I made when it was first broadcast in the 1980s. I had no life.
They say in the modern commentary that some things we know now contradict what we thought the but that doesn't hurt the enjoyment of the show.
"The Secret Life of Machines" is great mostly because they pull off amazing demonstrations of how the components inside work. The host Roy Hunkin said he amazed himself that were able to make an electrostatic copy like a Xerox machine. In almost every episode, even though I have decent knowledge I learned some new aspect of how things work.
The most amazing is "The 21st Century" which I remember watching when it was originally on in the 1960s. I remember it was the first time I heard that Raytheon had a prototype oven that cooked with microwave radio waves. They called it a RadarRange.
In one they absolutely torture some poor volunteers with Gs, heat and cold to check aspects of putting men in space. One guy was put into a 400 degree oven for 6 minutes.
I heard several times that we are scheduled to put men on Mars by 1986.
By the year 2000 we will have much more leisure time because we will work only a 30 hour work week.
They showed the home of the future. One cutting edge California engineer had a computer terminal (a LOUD clanky TeleType) in his own kitchen that connected by phone line to a computer all the way in New York. The kids could even do math homework on it.
The home would have a TEN FOOT 3D Television with a HIGH FIDELITY STEREOPHONIC SOUND system. There was a control panel about 8 feet wide that had huge knobs to control it all. There was desk where the homeowner could work. One screen had the weather and stock quotes. The one next to it was a video telephone. The next one could do the finances. (It never occurred then that we would have one screen that did all that and more..)
I went to a presentation at the Chicago Consumer Electronics show about 15 years ago where it was predicted there would be 10 foot flat screen "hang it on the wall" TVs in ten years time, and a panel member said "I've been hearing that we'd have them in ten years for 20 years." We still don't have em.
It occurs to me now that the QUADRAPHONIC SOUND we thought was white elephant fad in the 80s was actually ahead of it's time. It was only one or two speakers from modern surround sound systems.
Guests to your house will bring their own inflatable furniture, inflate it to use in your house, and then deflate it and take it home. (only until the end of the 1970s. |-{)
I felt like I was a visitor from the future looking in to see what they got right.
Mostly they couldn't imagine the drag that politics and other interests would be on progress in space and elsewhere. They didn't note that things got smaller as they got newer. I think at that time the miniaturization of electronics was just at its birth so they had no way to note what it would mean to things in the future.
It was very cool. I'm saving the "Home of the Future" episode permanently.
Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
...someone can show some reruns of "Everything with Dr. Jerry Hathaway."
I missed a lot of episodes because I was busy picking up some dry cleaning.
Science is not about watching, it's about doing (and then watching).
Generally speaking.
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.
I think it comes down to the people making the programmes. In the old days, the people who made the programmes understood what they were telling you. They designed the programmes to inform, to explain, to convey knowledge -- and that was what made them interesting.
These days, most programmes are made by people who clearly don't have a clue about their subject matter. The idea is just to interview a few professors and hope that some information will leak out somewhere... Which rarely happens. Or, alternatively, you get the whizz-bang style, the 'Hey, wow, we don't understand any of this stuff either, but doesn't it look good??!!' approach.
And then they wonder why people don't get as much out of such programmes...
Personally, I'm happier watching old Open University programmes than most prime-time science programmes, even those on the BBC. The thrill of learning something new, of having your horizons broadened. You can't beat it.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
I thought TechTV was a pretty successful network that releted to technology and science. I mean, that is *before* it merged with G4 and became an engine devoted to pumping moronic drivel all over the airwaves.
I had never heard of ResearchChannel. Thank you!
Logic, macros, and more
Want more people in the US to watch science related shows? Get David Suzuki back on the air in the US.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
The link is completely dead.
Not, at least, until we can re-run them through the Enlightenment.
After all the sharks on the Discovery channel, the evening news, and Finding Nemo, sharks are simply cliche, now, for at least fifty years. No, make that 75 years. I want to be dead before I see another news report about a shark attack.
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
Joe Public, Joe Six Pack, The Great Unwashed, ID-10-T Errors, l-users...
People aren't nearly as stupid as most geeks like to think. A big problem is that most "smart" people seem to be unable to communicate properly and that science really does come off as boring.
The reason most people find science boring is because it's so poorly presented. A Brief History of Time, and The Elegant Universe were both NYT Best Sellers. They explain amazingly complex topics in a way that's interesting and understandable.
Create some programs that deliver science with respect for the viewer and understands that if it doesn't seem interesting it's a fault of the show, not the viewers. Bring out the human and social factors and don't just dryly spout technical jargon.
Why not cross hard science with another popular format such as reality television or a "Ripley's Believe It or Not?"-like program.
The flash of popular culture with the inevitable substance of hard science.
Get smart.
Get...
The Nerd channel.
(Ding!)
When I first got TLC it was great. They had shows like The day the universe change and Connections. Both of these James Burke shows were great. TLC even produced their own version called Connection 2 and Connections 3. They made you think. But now all that is on there are people redecorating other poeples houses and some guy building weird cars. I guess you have to program what the public wants more stupid "reailty" shows.
just my $.02
This is the way the world ends, not with a bang , but a wimper
The world doesn't need a golf channel, but it thrives due to a limited number of golf enthusiasts. Advertising can be very focused.
Broadband and Satellite TV are making niche programming possible. In fact, niche content is flourishing. You (and I) may hate Howard Stern. However, he's found a new home in satellite radio.
Secondly, I like boring science. Of course, I studied Math so I suppose that explains a lot. I'd pay to have access to quality lectures (i.e. Feynman on video...). In fact, I've been slowly anticipating the release of ALL of his lectures (from the Feynman lectures) on CD.
Incidentally, anyone who thinks that weakened-IP (yes, I'm not a lawyer) is going to kill the music industry needs to look no further than talk radio. Talk radio's only commodity is advertising, yet Stern, Limbaugh, and the like are loaded. Brittney Spears wishes see was worth as much as some of these guys.
I'd pay for content (even if it was internet-based) of quality upper-division lectures from top-notch professors. However, you'd have to be good. No snoozers allowed.
Secondly, I like boring science. Of course, I studied Math so I suppose that explains a lot. I'd pay to have access to quality lectures (i.e. Feynman on video...). In fact, I've been slowly anticipating the release of ALL of his lectures (from the Feynman lectures) on CD.
Inicidentally, anyone who thinks that weakened-IP (yes, I'm not a lawyer) is going to kill the music industry needs to look no further than talk radio. Talk radio's only commodity is advertising, yet Stern, Limbaugh, and the like are loaded. Brittney Spears wishes see was worth as much as some of these guys.
I'd pay for content (even if it was internet-based) of quality upper-divison lectures from top-notch professors. However, you'd have to be good. No snoozers allowed.
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
No, the general public will not go for science TV. But the specific public will. And how to reach this specific public?
For those who skipped it, Wired's writer wrote "Exploring new technology like video on demand, or VOD, might give the Science Network a better chance of success, said Shirley Brady, who covers startup TV networks for CableWorld. With VOD, viewers could use their remote controls to select the show segments they want to see."
VOD services, like Akimbo which is rumored to start operating next week, will, if they are any good at all, have recommenders. You know, software that produces "People who ordered this also ordered" recommendations. Decent recommenders will help science viewers FIND their stuff, and help the science channels find their viewers.
Imagine getting interested in, oh, plate tectonics, being able to watch a show on it, and then being able to choose from a list of others.
Broadcast is something, but VOD is way, way more appropriate.
Tell me again, who knew Mary was a virgin, and how did they know?
There is no boring science. There are only boring speakers. And you're quite wrong about Fourier transforms. If you don't have an interest in the world around you, that doesn't make the world boring, it makes you boring.
----------
8E0012
B6E003
26FB
A680
B7E004
8104
26EF
3F
454952535420504F53542104
Swear to Darwin, top of my head, no references. :)
Motorola's 6809: Best 8/16-bit data, 16-bit address space MPU ever put to silicon. With a nod to Hitachi, who actually improved it, just a wee bit, but still, the credit belongs to Motorola.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I see a Science channel working along these lines. As long as the programming is interesting (instead of dry facts reminiscent of old science projector films). They have to somehow create popular appeal, while still retaining some hardcore science programs. Like history, science *is* interesting. In fact, some of the programs would probably report on feuds and drama in the history of science.
UWTV, UCTV and ResearchChannel, are sometimes interesting, so is the NASA channel. However, PBS-U has the best in my view. My only displeasure with it is that a lot of the shows they put on were made in the late 70's to mid 80's and are extremely out-dated. I always get a chuckle watching these 80's geeks talking about state of the art computer equipment with wire-frame graphics that tick along at a speedy 1 frame per second. Whoo! Seriously though, I found that the Annenburg CPB organization has a 'video on demand' that was at one time a free deal. You could watch any number of topics about physics, chemistry, language, economics (which the president needs to watch), and more. I guess for some people learning is an addiction and we need to get our fix someplace. As for whether or not a science tv show/channel would be popular my guess is that if they made 'The Science Channel' a free channel on basic cable, you'd find a ton of people that would watch it. The problem is that this station is only available in the max/premium packages for all the networks, including satellite. Any chance I could get to sit down in front of my tv and see what scientists do when they're not doing boring lectures would be more than entertaining, it would be learning.
Yup, there was a real cpu, particularly after hitachi got done with their so called workalike that was actually a brand new design. THE OS for it was of course os9, but by the time we got done taking advantage of the new commands the 6309 had in it, os9 was running 2x faster at the same clock speed, and it was called nitros9 then. I still have one coco3 with a 6309 in it setup and running in the basement, fully expanded, 1GB hard drive, 2 monitors with seperate shells running on each. It was my workhorse machine for over a decade, until the siren song of the amiga distracted me. Now of course its linux that distracts me. But there was a period when I ate and slept with hex codes in my head because I wrote the most productive stuff in assembler.
Sigh, and then you get old and arthritic and sit around recalling the good old days.
Cheers, Gene
Cro was a great science cartoon that nobody seems to have seen. It was about a Wooly Mammoth named Phil that was discovered frozen by a scientist who thawed him out and brought him to live with her and her adopted kid. In every episode, Phil would tell stories about Cro, the first Cro Magnon (his parents were Neandertals and his grandfather was an Australopithecus, and they all lived in a cave together) and his misadventures hanging out with the mammoths. The mammoths were the dominant species, and they had a sophisticated culture-- my favorite subtle joke was when they were trying to test relativity by swinging a mammoth like a tetherball while holding an hourglass to compare with an hourglass sitting on the ground (they didn't say anything at all why they were doing it). In every episode Cro would get into a situation where he would have to learn some physical principle (e.g. levers, bouyancy). It would be explained accurately (and non pedantically) and save Cro from certain death.
A few years back there were some physicists trying to get the TV world to put together a TV show about scientists, much like all the police and lawyer shows. One of the jokes in APS News was that they should call it NYPhD. Given the popularity of lawyer shows (I imagine work for most lawyers is quite dull) it's got to be possible to put together a dramatic show with a non-forensic, non-medical science backdrop.
My mom suggested a science geek version of "Cribs"-- I know a lot of scientists that have some weird projects at home, or things like a full machine shop in the living room.
You meant to say propaganda :)
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
I want them to go deeper into the subject.
My wife is tired of me screaming at the tv "This is freshmen level biology-- just like your last fucking show!"
It's the right-wingers who want to hinder science because it threatens their cherished judeo-christian mythology...
I guess.. if Joe Public cares, it will make more money and perpetuate itself.. ok..
..... I'm sure you could go on and on..
But.. fundamentally, isn't it this mentality that has watered down channels that already were originally intended to be particularly educational?
CourtTV
Discovery Channel
The History Channel
Many PBS affiliates
They all still have some good shows, but overall, they are way off the mark from how they were originally envisioned.
When you start caring about what 'Joe Public' cares about, you might as well just be straight forwrad and say "Let's appeal to the lowest common denominator."
Why do I care about what Joe Public cares about?
For one thing, I've never met the guy. For another thing, his opinion does not inform mine.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As someone who only has TV for those shows, I can vouch for someone out here caring. However, considering that most of the mainstream offal is just so much piffle to me...well, I may not be Joe Public.
I'll try harder. I'll go see what's on Spike and get back to you.
Now that I think of it, it might even be worth having a telly in the house over Christmas just to watch them this year.
Andrew
speaking of stupid. . .
It was indeed a great CPU. I was sufficiently inspired, even some years later, to write this emulation.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
When I was a kid I used to watch Professor Julius Sumner Miller and his show "Why is it So?" Every episode was a short physics demonstration. I was fascinated by it (he had kind of a freaky voice) and watching his show introduced me to physics.
Good Eats with Alton Brown. It's entertaining and informative.
If it's not entertaining, "hard science" television (and this IS the term the original question used) is only for people who already have an interest in the subject matter, and sometimes only for people with GREAT interest in the subject matter. Take a look at the channels referenced in the original question and tell me that they have even a chance of entertaining a wide audience - *I* have watched them and they're often even DRIER than attending a college lecture in person (perhaps because of the lack of physical immediacy - I don't know). If those are representative of where the original submitter wants TV to go, then I (a person who watches Nova and reads Scientific American, whilst also enjoying things like CSI and Smallville) have no interest at all - I prefer to fall asleep to baseball.
I didn't play with Flex more than a couple of days when somebody gave me what was probably a pirated copy. I was already into os9 level one then and rapidly becoming an enthusiast, which I am to this day.
I'd give yours a shot, but theres no windows here at all, 100% liunx, or the coco3 in the basement.
Does your emulator run pure 6809, or can it run 6309 stuff too?
I moved an old slow 233 p2 out to the shop a while back, put Fedora Core 2 on it and I'm designing the mechanicals to put some stepper motors on the handwheels of my micromill and let something like linuxCNC do the precision work for me. I've got good strong motors, and good motor drivers & psu enough to overdrive for decent speeds but will need to hack up something like an 8255 output circuit on a pci card to drive them with. Slow progress as it looks as if I'm going to have to drag out the mig welder and make the motor mounts out of little pieces of plate steel. Carving them out of solid alu will take too long and might not be rigid enough. They must mount to the handwheeel bearing bosses as all this moves with the work table as it moves. Its about 5" from the mount bosses to the motor, and 4 90 degree turns to get to the motor mounting bolts. I could do it in a brake, but don't have one anywhere near stout enough for the 12 gauge steel it would take to do it somewhere near right..
Tomorrow is another day though.
Cheers, Gene
I work for a cable provider, and we seem to have a lot of customers :P
that subscribe to the additional Discovery channels and similar.
It's often paired with the Playboy channel, though
(Cable TV basic package + two channels + broadband = typical geek)
I've had it up to the ears with "Shark Week" or "Nature" shows. I don't personally care to learn about where and how a bear shits in the woods for the twentieth time today. I would *much rather* see something on physics, astronomy, chemistry, computers, or mathematics than anything else.
The problem is that I am the one in a million viewer who DOESN'T want to see the "guy-from-down-under" wrestly a croc and warn me to "never try this at home" for the thousandth time when he goes off and does something foolish.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
>>"...I've wondered if hard science or technology programming will ever catch on with the general public."
Of course, not. No more than the "general public" will decide it wants to watch programming about accounting, horticulture, or dairy farming.
The "general public" is everyone. People have different interests. No single interest has any more or less value than another.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Television is mostly an entertainment medium. Even the "news" is about hype "Child killer on the loose, is your child safe? New at 11.". Current "science" TV is frequently about speculation, what might be around the corner in 5, 10, 75 years. More talk about holographic storage than how existing magnetic storage works, or the theories/laws that govern it. The problem is, most people don't care about how existing science is used, so for a television channel to be viable they have to add the hype. I'm skeptical... I hope it works though... a station with lectures by leading scientists, clear explanations of existing research, and more science than CSI is a good thing.
Well, maybe not quite yet, but there are a lot of people who want that to happen.
I sense a growing religious-based governing mentality. We have the Muslim uprising and the Christian right wing in the USA. I believe religion was created to unite people in a common and good cause but it is now being twisted around to divide people and in doing so its extremism sees science and the scientific method as a threat to its faith-based foundations.
So, you immediately assume that the examples of extreme stupidity you have witnessed are representative of "average" intelligence?
There's a reason that anecdotal evidence is not looked highly upon in science.
(Note: I'm not saying that the average person is as intelligent as I would like him to be, just that your reasoning isn't sound evidence for him being as stupid as you suggest.)
Reality Science Channel: Reality TV meets Science TV. The History Channel's for my Dad, this new one's for me! (Proposal for a new channel, hopefully available on the Net)
This new channel shows what scientists do all day, following them through a project from conception, selling it to a sponsor, trials and tribulations, testing and success (!) finally what happens thereafter and how their work fits into pageant of science and/or millionaire status.
Why? Sure I watch TV to unwind and use the Net to learn. But science tv is good for society and would reduce kids interested in science from being picked on for being nerds. And because I'd like to see the whole story of Burt Rutan's saga, this would be a great subject. It is almost criminal that video journalists were not assigned by some organization to follow the progress of all Ansari X Prize competitors, after all this was history in the making.
I think people (from kids to grownups, non-science people to professional researchers) would be interested in seeing exactly how these heroes think, what they went through and what happened along the way. Far more interesting than what people call "Reality TV", which is actually not at all realistic.
The closest thing is The Apprentice, although it is selling the "self-confidence will make you rich" bit a little strongly don't you think? And being marooned on a desert island? Come on! Of course the only problem with my Reality Science Channel idea is that you don't know who is going to be a hero, you can only try to pick up on leading people, news-worthy projects, and maybe ask other scientists who is worth watching. If the TV show would sponsor the scientist's research too it could be extremely profitable all around! How about focusing on the guys trying to build a nanotube space elevator?? What about the mag-beam and other advanced propulsion cowboys?? You aren't going to see these things on the History Channel in 50 years if you don't make the documentary now. This could be the best thing to happen to the U.S. which is unfortunately subject to utter demagoguery, corrupt media, money says PR is more important than science, etc. etc. otherwise the country is going seriously down as far as science goes. Look at it this way, I took a first year chemistry course at Cornell in 85 and the teacher was Roald Hoffmann, a Nobel Prize winner. Holy shit I thought! I was too dumb then to actually try to talk to the guy and find out how he thinks of course. Wish I had though. If you spend time with really great people some of their thinking rubs off on you. Which I noticed when I had a totally by chance opportunity once several years ago to spend some hours in the vicinity of an apparent billionaire. No, alas I was still too dumb to say anything worthwhile to him but could see how he reacted to things. I think it is something that could be captured by video (hi-res please) and audio (high bitrate please), and some extremely good talent. Come to think of it this doesn't only go for science. Currently U.S. elementary and high-schools, and even universities, really do almost nothing to help prepare a student in terms of how to think and how to approach the world. So an awful lot of time is wasted on kids blowing off studies, being cool, going through throes of emotion, taking the easy road, etc.
With the Net and some good reporting, every kid could find out way in advance what people do all day and whether this kind of a career might be good for him or her. This is not the only way to get science onto TV, and a net-based program would also be okay, even say Stargate Atlantis used as a laboratory set a la Sagan's Cosmos would be useful! Gee, maybe if like 1/20 the money spent on Iraq was put into the educational system we might get something useful out of it.
The most memorable science TV program I remember in recent years is a very beautiful astronomy program made by a French outfit, i saw it in Japanese on Japanese TV. It had delicious illustrated animations that helped y
It never really achieved any of that.
It got a good start, but never got past pre-school. My grandkids learned lots from Count Dracula and Big Bird.
The truth shall set you free!
As long as I don't have a hear an Evolutionary bias in information provided... as long as it's a true science channel, it's all good! (and that means no origin of species coverage... stuff you can't prove)
I don't know 6809, but I know ASCII... Shouldn't the 45 be a 46?
Yup. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Gee. Maybe if they get someone like you to bring the message to the people, they'd make inroads to the masses. I can hear it now.
"C'mon ya' dumb rocks. Watch something inteligent for a change!
I've wondered if hard science or technology programming will ever catch on with the general public. What do you think?"
The general public (at least in the U.S.) doesn't like anything remotely educational. For proof, look to The Discovery Channel and The Learning Channel. There used to be very good shows on both, all the time. In the last couple of years, their programming has taken a drastic downturn. I ask you, what's so educational about a family of foul-mouthed neanderthals building gaudy motorcycles? Or a bunch of idiots redoing each other's houses? The only decent, interesting show left on either network that I can think of right now is Mythbusters-- but even they sort of pander to the idiots by staying light on the science behind their experiments and blowing shit up all the time (Ooooh! Explosions!).
It seems the public may be beginning to tire of reality shows, but it's still too early to be certain. Perhaps once the reality fad blows over, TLC and Discovery will resume programming for people smarter than the average turnip. One can only hope.
~Philly
You're a Chicago guy . . . do you remember Dr. Posen's Universe (or something similar) back in the early 60's? This wonderful program originated from the Museum of Science and Industry . . . but perhaps you're not *that* old. I was just a kid when Dr Posen's show was broadcast but it left a lasting impression. Like you, I loved Dr. Jacob Bronowski's series (and his books). James Burke was a hoot as well; thought provoking and original. There were a few others over the years mostly on PBS, the names of which escape me at the moment. . .
.
You want to know about Science on tv (including cable) or the viability of a true Science Channel? Why, just take a trip to your favorite bookstore or, for that matter, any bookstore, saving a college or university bookstore, and count up the number of titles in the "New Age" and "Self Help" sections. Then count up the number of titles in the "Science" section - if you can find it - and don't count those books on owning cats and dogs. Shelf after shelf after shelf of the "New Age" stuff. Very little Science. I started doing this kind of counting years ago as an informal "experiment" and over the years watched Fact, as represented by books on science and technology dwindle away, replaced by books about Faith and Belief, to the tune of something approaching 75-to-1. It's depressing. The majority of the population of this country apparently care nothing about understanding the world we live in. And that, is exactly representative of the current state of Science on tv. I guess Faith and Belief are ok if it keeps folks from killing their neighbors. .