Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Ultimate Hopes For the New Cosmos Series

Posted by samzenpus on from the think-big dept.

StartsWithABang writes "So unless you've been living under a rock, you're aware that it's only a few short weeks until the premiere of the new Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey starring Neil de Grasse Tyson. Many have hopes (and fears) concerning what the series will (and won't) be, but this perspective — on what a 'successful' Cosmos series could mean for the future of humanity — is worth a read for anyone who hasn't given up on dreaming big."

119 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. I hope it has a good soundtrack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Jarr, Vangelis, in those line...

    1. Re:I hope it has a good soundtrack by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Vangelis is still alive, and he wrote the theme for the original series.

    2. Re:I hope it has a good soundtrack by mendax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      According to the Wikipedia entry for the series, the soundrack will be written by Alan Silvestri. He's a good film composer (I liked his score for Contact) but I think the original Cosmos had a better idea. That series used existing music, mostly classical, for its score. Some of it was removed from the DVD versions due to the expense of getting the rights to it again, but if you saw the original series, the music is one of the things that made the series special. I learned a lot about classical music from that series.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    3. Re:I hope it has a good soundtrack by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      That series used existing music

      And so will this one. It just doesn't exist yet.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:I hope it has a good soundtrack by mendax · · Score: 1

      That series used existing music

      And so will this one. It just doesn't exist yet.

      Okay, let me rephrase. The original series used music that existed BEFORE the series was even thought of, which maybe a couple exceptions, such as the Vangelis pieces.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    5. Re:I hope it has a good soundtrack by flyneye · · Score: 1

      J.M.Jarre?

      I wonder how it will do, this IS Hollywood. If it doesnt attract sponsors with full pockets, itll be outa here like the last episodes of Quark.
      If it gets put up against big hitters on the other networks, this could be a tough fight. I dont hold out any hope for anything premiering in the spring.
      Its a test bed made of those bored w/reruns, but willing to do EXACTLY the same routine over and over if only not to have to think and melt peacefully into the couch with a beer.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  2. If by The+Cat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If it restores America's manned spaceflight program, then it will be worth it.

    Almost every cultural intersection between science and the human spirit since the early 1920s originated in man's mission to reach space and other planets. One could argue conclusively that America's peak was July 20th, 1969.

    It is true that since then we have lost our way. But that, like many other things, is a fixable problem, provided America rediscovers its soul and remembers what it means to be an American.

    1. Re:If by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      but it's just a show. pretty documentary.

      so why are people waiting for it as if it had new revelations or some shit like that?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:If by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry, what does it mean to be an American? I always hoped those people who care about science, cosmos and all that wouldn't take so seriosly minor human issues such as nationality. I guess I was wrong.

    3. Re:If by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a show that inspired a lot of kids to be scientists

    4. Re:If by The+Cat · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, look at it this way: if it weren't for America, there wouldn't be a Cosmos television series.

      What does it mean to be an American? It means you value human achievement. Americans are courageous enough to not only want to explore, but to insist on it. It drove us across the Atlantic Ocean and across North America, and then to the moon.

      In the process we invented the modern world, which is one of the things that makes advanced science possible.

    5. Re:If by Yoje · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I believe the hope here is not that it will bring forward some new revelation, but that it will simply get the general public excited about science again.

      The original Cosmos series helped get a lot of the public talking about science, and probably grew some careers out of the kids that watched it as well. Whether Tyson and the rest of the new Cosmos staff will be able to do this remains to be seen, but I think the primary goal is not necessarily to give new insight into the mysteries of the universe, but to make thinking about these questions interesting again to the general public.

      In today's television world of History being taught by Pawn Stars, and The Learning Channel showing us insights of child beauty pageants, reality shows are now the bread and butter for almost every network. It has seriously diluted the education that is occurring from television (and let's be honest, whether it should be or not, there is no escape that a lot of people do substitute television watching for actual learning). While PBS and a few other stray networks help a bit, this new series of Cosmos offers some hope. If NatGeo was the only one doing it, it would gain some attention, but the fact that a major over-the-air network like Fox (especially with its reputation) is teaming up with this is encouraging.

      If the new Cosmos can actually succeed, not necessarily in explaining complex scientific theories about our world and the universe, but if it can succeed in what the original Cosmos did in just getting everyday people excited in science again, it would do a lot of long term good for this country. Perhaps, just perhaps, a few other networks could follow suit and knock out one or two hours a week of their reality programs to put more science into their programming. Perhaps it can get more people, especially young people, into looking at science as a viable career option instead of trying to figure out how to get their 15 mins of fame on another reality show. Lofty dreams to be sure, but we have to start somewhere, and hopefully this new series will either help be that spark to get others excited, or confirm once and for all that no one in this country really gives a damn about science and watch as our scientific knowledge plummets compared to the rest of the world.

    6. Re:If by Evtim · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It changes lives. Literally. It raises awareness.

      My decision to come and work in the Netherlands is entirely based on Cosmos. "travelers in time ans space" was the episode - it talks exclusively about the Dutch golden age. Saw it behind the Iron Curtain at an age of 12 or something. When I realized that this is a society where you could say "The world is my country, science is my religion" [quote Christian Huygens] in the times when Galileo was prosecuted in South Europe and threaten with death I though "this is it, I'm going there".

      Of course, this famous Dutch spirit has been under attack recently as "non-profitable" - exactly the same decline in rational thought that we see much more pronounced in the US. So the Dutch also need new Cosmos, to remind them that it is because of that spirit they had the golden age. The moment they loose it, they've lost everything, since this country has nothing else [no resources, nor territory].

    7. Re:If by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ou really? Von Braun got the desire to go to moon as soon as he tasted some of that sweet, sweet american freedom? you have no fscking clue about where modern middle class life with all it's modern appliances, industrial production, modern chemistry and everything else originates from do you?

      no wonder if you're waiting for tyson to bring you back from the dark ages or some shit like that with "an inspiring tv show".

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re:If by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Americans are courageous enough to not only want to explore, but to insist on it. It drove us across the Atlantic Ocean and across North America, and then to the moon.

      Your UID is perhaps too big to realize it, but a lot of people in the US didn't want to go to the moon, and thought it was just a waste of money. It was only decades later that people started to feel better about having gone.

    9. Re:If by roca · · Score: 2

      Please, no, not more squandering of funds on meaningless manned missions driven not by science or long-term goals but by absurd "human spirit" PR to get more funding for more meaningless missions.

      We need a self-sustaining human presence off this planet, but all paths to get there require robotic mining and construction outside the Earth's gravity well, and that is what we need to be investing in.

    10. Re:If by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I believe the hope here is not that it will bring forward some new revelation, but that it will simply get the general public excited about science again.

      Unfortunately I don't have big hopes about the general public and science, considering that actually people happily watch bullshit shows like "Ancient Aliens"

    11. Re:If by number6x · · Score: 1

      replying to remove bad moderation

    12. Re:If by camperdave · · Score: 1

      All this garbage about how vitally important maned space flight is, for example.

      Maned space flight? Most astronauts, especially the males, have short hair. Or are you suggesting... Lions In Space!

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    13. Re:If by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      In today's television world of History being taught by Pawn Stars, and The Learning Channel showing us insights of child beauty pageants, reality shows are now the bread and butter for almost every network. It has seriously diluted the education that is occurring from television (and let's be honest, whether it should be or not, there is no escape that a lot of people do substitute television watching for actual learning). While PBS and a few other stray networks help a bit, this new series of Cosmos offers some hope.

      Well, maybe, but in some sense the fact that the show doesn't really intend to communicate new science so much as put it into perspective just illustrates how bad the problem is. I can see the argument that they're not trying to deliver science so much as to impress people that it is important - that you have to fix the problem before you can start delivering decent content.

      I feel like the TV audiences are virtually a lost cause. Mythbusters is one of the better shows but it seems like they miss the most obvious controls and it is less about science and answering questions and more about entertainment and finding things to blow up. Honestly, the explosions start getting old after a while - yes, I understand that if you take just about anything and load it with C4 it goes away. It was amusing when they did it with the cement truck, and that was about when that meme jumped the shark. I have nothing against explosions when they're relevant (testing the propensity of stills to explode and such), but they don't have to get a successful explosion in every show.

    14. Re:If by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How did you watch Cosmos behind the iron curtain? Traded VHS tapes, or was it broadcast?

    15. Re:If by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      Desire deshmire. We actually went to the moon, a few different times even, and humanity is still waiting for anyone else to step up and do the same. Suck it, haters. You go to the moon, and then you can sit at the big-boy table with us, but you'll still be fifty years behind.

    16. Re:If by operagost · · Score: 1, Informative

      As it should be, because you are a time-wasting, inflammatory troll.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    17. Re:If by operagost · · Score: 1

      You expect people to be 100% in agreement about everything?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    18. Re:If by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      It's a show that inspired a lot of kids to be scientists

      ... At a time when television was 3 channels + PBS, which meant it aired as 1 of 4 choices, at a time when there was no Internet and you had to plunk down the equivalent of $700 to play Pong on your TV. Good like getting anything like the same audience when it's competing with Game of Thrones, Duck Dynasty, or anything on Netflix. And those are just the broadcast entertainment competitors.

      PBS also was not nearly the corporate shill in 1980 that they have become. Knowing PBS today, they'll probably air the thing during a funding-raising drive where you have to sit through 20 minutes of begging for money for every 15 minutes of show.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    19. Re:If by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      Who modded this drek up? (feeding the trolls but hey, why not?)
      Space travel was brought to us by the USA and Russia. The USA was funding Wernher Von Braun, a Nazi scientist the US captured and took back to the US. He was more than happy to get a huge budget and sandbox to play with and the US government were happy as long as it meant they beat the Russians to space. So it was a combination of Europe and the USA.

      Television was brought about by the efforts of many countries, including Germany, Hungary, England, Russia, Japan and the USA. Philo Farnsworth, an American developed the first practical TV system (camera and receiver) and started the TV revolution. The first TV station was based in the USA.

      "Most basic scientific advancements in chemistry, physics: brought to you by the kind people of Europe and Russia."
      Russia is part of Europe unless you are talking to a Russian. This one is vague but I assume part of the answer is easy: they were made before the US was even a country or shortly thereafter during the Newton and the scientific revolution from 1600 to 1800 (Source) And even before 1600 we had many people from all over Europe, the Middle-east and Asia laying the groundwork for modern sciences. Or did you forget those last two? Barbaric ignorance indeed.

      Okay how about this: Europe created the USA. Therefore all things brought to us by the USA were brought to us by Europe. Hopefully ignorant, butt-hurt Eurotrash trolls such as yourself yourself can now sleep better.

    20. Re:If by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Your correct about kids, I watched it back when I was a teenager in the 70's, Sagan's (paraphrase) "We are made of star stuff, we are the way in which the universe observes itself" is as close to spirituality as I get. The new version will first be aired on Fox, which IMO is exactly the audience that needs to see it more than anyone else, including children.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    21. Re:If by tragedy · · Score: 1

      In the process we invented the modern world, which is one of the things that makes advanced science possible.

      --The Cat

      The moon belongs to America, and anxiously awaits the arrival of our astro-men. Will you be among them?

      _Simpsons_

    22. Re:If by tragedy · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that was the World Health Organization. The US was certainly part of that effort. It just wasn't the only part. This is not to say that I neccessarily agree with the thesis statement about a peak for the US on July 20th, 1969. Any argument about a historical "peak" for a nation is going to be highly subjective.

    23. Re:If by EStrat · · Score: 1

      I agree with much of what you say, but the new Cosmos will air not on PBS but Fox stations.

  3. There is at least hope. by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Neil de Grasse Tyson isn't bad. Not a Carl Sagan, but running a TV show about science is really about building a bridge between the general public and the current science and I think that Neil de Grasse Tyson can do that.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:There is at least hope. by firex726 · · Score: 1

      Yea, plus if you've seen him on stage with his peers he can come off rather negatively.
      There was that one panels he did a couple years back alongside Cox and Nye in which he kept interrupting Nye and arguing semantics throughout. By himself he's great, but along side people whose opinions mean the same as his and not so much.

    2. Re:There is at least hope. by AdamColley · · Score: 1

      Also, he killed Pluto, that bastard

      (but seriously, he's pretty good and a sensible choice for the new Cosmos, imho)

    3. Re:There is at least hope. by east+coast · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's the thing about Tyson and just about every public scientist out there today, they're not inclusive like Sagan was. That's what made Sagan great and even gave the naysayers a reason to lend an ear. He opened himself up to the "what ifs" of the world and didn't shout people down for their own way of being as long as it wasn't harmful to others.

      We need a feeling of unity more than anything else at this place in time for humanity's sake. I just don't see Tyson doing that although he may be the most qualified to do so. We really do need another Sagan.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    4. Re:There is at least hope. by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      Yea, plus if you've seen him on stage with his peers he can come off rather negatively. There was that one panels he did a couple years back alongside Cox and Nye in which he kept interrupting Nye and arguing semantics throughout.

      Brian Cox comes closer to Sagan's aesthetic. Neil seems a lot more clownish. I've seen multiple interviews where he tries so hard to force joke after joke, complete with irritating laughter, that he completely missed the point of some questions and distracted from the science. Sagan and Cox inspire scientific wonder, Neil is closer to open mike night at the Laugh Shack.

    5. Re:There is at least hope. by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      Pluto is still there. I'm pretty sure Tyson has never been to Pluto and never changed it in any way. Pluto is still the exact same thing it has been since before any of us were born.

    6. Re:There is at least hope. by east+coast · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of the pushback you're seeing today didn't exist back with people were more enclusive and religious ideology was much higher than it is today. The modern day social schism we have isn't the norm regardless of your thoughts on religion.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    7. Re:There is at least hope. by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      I like Brian Cox, but he comes across as melodramatic. A point that could be made in an interesting manner in 20 seconds takes Cox at least 5 minutes.

    8. Re:There is at least hope. by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      I'll grant you some of that. My first reaction to seeing Cox on video was "what a punk", and half expected him to ride a skateboard into the next segment. I gave him more slack after reading The Quantum Universe and Why Does E=mc^2. Sagan also strayed into the grandiose, but I always enjoyed the theater. Maybe Tyson just interviews poorly. I'll definitely watch the new Cosmos.

    9. Re:There is at least hope. by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Religion was invoked as a singular example, don't try to re-frame the argument.

      Who tried to reframe the argument here, Mr. AC? While the quote you offer is insightful you certainly could have leaned on that instead of involving religion because it would have taken it out of the equation early on. Don't blame me that you had to lean on religion and the fact of what you cited of mine still stands as relevant. It, in no way, tried to divert attention from the general notion of what was being said.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    10. Re:There is at least hope. by east+coast · · Score: 1

      First off, don't "quote" me on something I never said. That's a massive fail right there.

      And you really think that someone's position on the presidents birth certificate can really be compared to someone questioning scientific fact? Really? Ok. I'm done here. You're trying to talk in a circle that has no valid endpoint. You won't bother to stay on topic and you're trying to make it look like I said something I never did.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  4. Big shoes to fill this one has by mendax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I like the idea of a remade Cosmos series. It's long overdue. However, it will be difficult for the series to be anywhere near as good as the original. The original was a mix of great writing, great music, especially the classical numbers, and the love of the subject that Carl Sagan had. Dr. Sagan wasn't just host and co-writer of the series, he was THE high priest of popular science as that time and when he spoke, he was preaching like a Bible-thumping evangelist, only without the southern drawl. While Neil de Grasse Tyson has done a lot of work to fill that role, he's not Carl Sagan. Still, I look forward to seeing this series. Since I don't usually watch TV, I'll have to get a digital TV antenna.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    1. Re:Big shoes to fill this one has by Sebastopol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When is the last time you watched the original Cosmos? There are a lot--and I mean A LOT--of scenes featuring Carl sitting on a beach or in a meadow looking off into the distance with pontificating voice-overs that kinda ramble. Believe me, I'm 42 and I grew up on that series, but having re-watched it recently, I was surprised at the large spans of near bloviation that adorn the show. I absolutely adore the series, I just think it could have used some tightening up during editing.

      Also, I graduated from COSMOS to The Mechanical Universe, which--aside from the haircuts of the classroom--would still feel modern by today's standards.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    2. Re:Big shoes to fill this one has by mendax · · Score: 2

      When is the last time you watched the original Cosmos?

      Actually, I watched it last week. I have the DVD set. The series was not meant to be a pure documentary. If you wanted that, you can read the book. It was meant to be beautiful, a work of art, and the producers, cinematographers, and the editing crew did a great of creating it.

      Regarding pontificating, Dr. Sagan was more preaching than pontificating. But given that the show's purpose was to teach the general public about a subject he loved and believed, something he'd spent most of his professional life doing, it was to be expected.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    3. Re:Big shoes to fill this one has by mendax · · Score: 1

      You know, after I wrote this post, I looked at the Wikipedia entry of Neil de Grasse Tyson and saw a photo of him signing one of his books. He's using a blue expensive-looking (maybe Waterman) fountain pen. My opinion of his success of his version of Cosmos has improved. As a fellow fountain pen user, anyone recent user of one of these anachronisms comes up a notch in my estimate.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    4. Re:Big shoes to fill this one has by symes · · Score: 1

      I sort of agree with you. But you also have to think about who the program is aimed at. I would think you as a 42 year old can handle a much higher baud rate and have a far broader vocabulary. Cosmos inspired youngsters to think about what lies beyond our world and that will need a different approach to those you might take with interested adults. Thing is, if adults watching the new series love it then this runs the risk of kids hating it not only because it will be beyond them but also because, well, if it is something mom and pop are into then it is bound to be irrelevant.

    5. Re:Big shoes to fill this one has by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      When is the last time you watched the original Cosmos? There are a lot--and I mean A LOT--of scenes featuring Carl sitting on a beach or in a meadow looking off into the distance with pontificating voice-overs that kinda ramble.

      Yeah, there were a lot of scenes like that and some of the editing of the rest could perhaps have done with being a little more tight, but the series got the job done well and I've never failed to enjoy re-watching it. To that end I'm planning on watching it next week and the week after, once I've finished watching my Game of Thrones S3 discs. That way, when I inevitably compare the new series with the original I'll be doing so against a fresh impression and not some rose-tinted view of greatness. Regardless of how it compares though, as long as it gets a sizeable proportion of the current crop of adolescents at least interested in STEM, that's going to be a good enough result, I think.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    6. Re:Big shoes to fill this one has by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      Actually they are not anachronisms, probably more high tech then any other type pf pen.
      I believe that pen ( if it is the same one I once saw ), then it is a Pelikan Blue Planet. Definitely the nib is a Pelikan.
      Waterman's have been crap since Gillette bought them ( but then I haven't looked recently maybe they've improved them. )

    7. Re:Big shoes to fill this one has by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      If you get things too tight you will lose some viewers. The point is to have some parts where the viewer can have a pause and get the wider perspective before you dive into the deep again.

      People today are too stressed to really relax and take a wider perspective from time to time.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    8. Re:Big shoes to fill this one has by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The series was not meant to be a pure documentary. If you wanted that, you can read the book. It was meant to be beautiful, a work of art,

      It's a very slowwwww work of art. As a work of art, it might be great, I wouldn't know because it was too slow and it lost me. As a thing for conveying information to humans it is crap, because of too much BHA in love with himself.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Big shoes to fill this one has by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      When is the last time you watched the original Cosmos?

      Funny you should ask that. I have Cosmos on DVD and I'm currently rewatching it right now. Great stuff.

    10. Re:Big shoes to fill this one has by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      It's a very slowwwww work of art.

      Because Lord knows, if you're not being presented with a change of subject every 30 seconds, you'll get bored. Of all the things I'm afraid of with a new Cosmos, this ranks first. There's no chance it will have the majestic pace of the original.

    11. Re:Big shoes to fill this one has by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Because Lord knows, if you're not being presented with a change of subject every 30 seconds, you'll get bored. Of all the things I'm afraid of with a new Cosmos, this ranks first. There's no chance it will have the majestic pace of the original.

      It doesn't need to. If you want the original, watch it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Big shoes to fill this one has by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      If you want the original, watch it.

      The original is a science documentary from over forty years ago. It holds up astonishingly well, but an update to the current state of the art is undoubtedly called for. The problem is, that's not the only change they'll make.

    13. Re:Big shoes to fill this one has by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Editing too loose will lose even more viewers as it comes across as slow and self-indulgent e.g. any Judd Apatow movie.

      I like Brian Cox but he has the tendency to do the same thing. Many times by the time he gets to the point, the viewer has been lost trying to wade through metaphors.

    14. Re:Big shoes to fill this one has by cusco · · Score: 1

      Several years ago my wife and I were at a secondhand store and I saw a complete set of VHS tapes of Cosmos. That's what I got for my birthday, one of the best presents I've ever had. I've been re-watching it recently and am surprised at how accurate Sagan's predictions generally were.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    15. Re:Big shoes to fill this one has by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      I didn't state my original point clearly enough. If you edited Cosmos to take out Dr. Sagan's lengthy and yawn-inducing monologues about our insignificance in the cosmos, you end up with The Mechanical Universe, which is paced at the speed of top-tier college lecture.

      I also don't think it is a problem to match the pace of the lecture with what today's you are accustomed to. When sound was added to cinema in the early 20th century, purists claimed it would ruin the art form. The same thing happened when people actually began to edit with an artistic eye and shots reduced in time from 30-60 seconds to 5-10 (with the advent of new technology). In fact, there was even resistance to technicolor by the French auteurs!

      I wouldn't be quick to claim the way I learned, or the way engineers in the 1950's (or 1850's!) learned, or the way you learned is "the one true way." If youth are accustomed to fast-paced editing, then use that form. If you personally don't like it, open a book and learn at your own pace, or launch a Kickstarter. :)

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  5. My only issue with this is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... that it'll be exactly like every other one. We watch them hoping they will show us something new, and they almost never do.

  6. Re:Just got here by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Took a look to see headlines like "How Facebook Can Be Addicting".
    Enrol a few grammar Nazis in the editing process and it will be a bit less embarrassing.

  7. Under a rock..or outside the US by bradley13 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Never heard of it. And a science program for the US public is likely to be all flashy pictures and no depth. Still, if it is a success, maybe it will awaken some belated interest in science and education, as opposed to Justin Bieber and Oprah.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Under a rock..or outside the US by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      and probably spend most of its time debunking climate change.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:Under a rock..or outside the US by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      This might be hard to believe, but very few Americans give a shit about Justin Bieber or Oprah. It's true those are both famous American artists ("aritsts"), but they still play to a tiny slice of the country. The rest of us think Bieber is a talentless asshat, and Oprah is boring and played. Also, almost none of us have blonde-dyed hair and spray-on tans, even though that's who we put on television. Our non-celebrities are just about exactly the same as the non-celebrities throughout the Western world.

    3. Re:Under a rock..or outside the US by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      There are already science programs for the US public and they tend to have a lot of depth. In fact, many are repackaged with different narrators and presented to foreign audiences - even the UK.

      Of course, it works the other way around as well - David Attenborough's nature documentaries repackaged with an American narrator and are very popular in the US.

  8. Re:Just got here by robinesque · · Score: 1

    Addicting may be used as participle adjective so "Facebook Can Be Addicting" is in fact grammatically acceptable.

  9. no rock by CTU · · Score: 1

    and yet I did not know this

  10. Contact? Bah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Contact" was the worst movie ever (and I've seen "Plan 9 from outer space") - the central premise of the book (the digits of PI) was totally removed from the movie. It's like the Americans buying the rights to Fawlty Towers and removing Basil Fawlty because he's too abrasive :-)

    1. Re:Contact? Bah! by mendax · · Score: 1

      "Contact" was the worst movie ever (and I've seen "Plan 9 from outer space")

      Oh, it was not that bad. It was reasonably faithful to the novel except ....

      - the central premise of the book (the digits of PI) was totally removed from the movie.

      ... which was a bummer for me as well, but I could live with it. I would have liked it if they got rid of Bill Clinton, though.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    2. Re:Contact? Bah! by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Real aliens would use the digits of Tau, not Pi.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Contact? Bah! by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure I'd call the digits of Pi the central premise of the book. It explored a lot of concepts around SETI, religion, and so on. The digits of Pi thing at the end was more of a culmination than a central premise, and it didn't really resolve anything. The main character was a skeptic who had an experience which was then met with public skepticism. That was actually how the movie went as well (though I thought it was far inferior to the book). The digits of Pi really was just another level of that, except that it explicitly turned the debate from whether humans had in fact met with aliens to weather humans had in fact received a message from God. However, the skeptical paradox is still there - a message embedded in Pi is unlikely in one sense, and all but certain in another. If a bunch of monkeys end up typing Shakespeare is that proof of a God, or proof that somebody finally found enough monkeys?

      Disclaimer - it has been a long time since I read the book, so I could be forgetting something.

    4. Re:Contact? Bah! by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Since Pi is 1/2 Tau, I'm pretty sure that a hidden message in Tau would show up in Pi as well. I'm never quite sure how serious the Tau people are. They alway sound a bit like the people warning about the dangers of DHMO.

    5. Re:Contact? Bah! by tragedy · · Score: 1

      If a bunch of monkeys end up typing Shakespeare is that proof of a God, or proof that somebody finally found enough monkeys?

      The problem with using monkeys is, of course, that they possess intelligence and adaptability. So, you really have to carefully design your experiment to make sure that the keypresses from the monkeys are truly random or you could have really skewed results one way or another. If you're using a truly random keypresser, however, you can work out odds on how often you should get the complete works of Shakespeare. If you get a lot more or a lot fewer copies than you statistically should, that would indicate a bias somewhere. So, if you find hidden messages in constants that are extremely unlikely to be there mathematically, you've either discovered something profound (either a real hidden message, or something wrong in the laws of statistics) or you've just exerpienced an astoundingly unlikely coincidence.

    6. Re:Contact? Bah! by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      So, if you find hidden messages in constants that are extremely unlikely to be there mathematically, you've either discovered something profound (either a real hidden message, or something wrong in the laws of statistics) or you've just exerpienced an astoundingly unlikely coincidence.

      That's the whole point. An obvious message buried in a physical constant screams message from some intelligent God-like being, but you never can be sure.

    7. Re:Contact? Bah! by tragedy · · Score: 1

      How certain we are of things has to ultimately come down to probability. That's true of everything, even the supposedly direct evidence of our senses. If there's a very high probability that we've found a hidden message, then we've probably found a hidden message. The conclusions we could draw from that are many and varied but, unless someone just forgot to carry the 1, it would be a very profound discovery. Whether it's really a hidden message, or a fundamental flaw in math itself, or some sort of hole in our perceptions that stops us from seeing our mistake (the second two could still just be a way for some intelligence with control over everythign to hide a message, of course), we would have to proceed based on what's most likely. Sure, people get struck by lightning and win the lottery, but rational people still go through life under the assumption that they're not going to win the lottery or be struck by lightning (provided they don't enjoy standing on hilltops in thunderstorms wearing wet copper armor and screaming "all gods are bastards", to paraphrase Terry Pratchett.

    8. Re:Contact? Bah! by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      If there's a very high probability that we've found a hidden message, then we've probably found a hidden message.

      If that isn't an example of the futility of mathematics, I don't know what is. :)

      Of course everything that you said makes sense. The bigger point that Sagan was making was that skepticism/rationalism was a bit of a double-edged sword. He wasn't really suggesting that we should stop being skeptical. However, the perfect skeptic isn't automatically assured of finding "the truth."

    9. Re:Contact? Bah! by tragedy · · Score: 1

      A joke:
      A physicist, a mathemetician and an engineer are put in a hallway. At the end of the hallway is an extremely attractive member of whatever gender happens to appeal to each of them. They are told that, if they can reach the person at the end of the hallway, they can do whatever they want with them. However, they can only advance down the hallway in increments of the remaining distance. The physicist and the mathematician give up right away, knowing that the task is impossible. The engineer starts immediately, knowing that it's possible to get close enough for all practical purposes.

  11. Re:Same old bore by firex726 · · Score: 1

    Or Brian Cox, who has already hosted several science shows on the BBC.

  12. Was hoping they had finally cloned Sagan... by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But Neil Tyson is pretty awesome too.

  13. Re:Good luck... by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    I'm not Greek and right there with you; Cosmos needs Vangelis again.

    Could listen to this for hours: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

  14. American tv-documentaries stink lately by lemur3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    About 3-4 years ago I got into the habit of watching most of the documentaries that come out of the UK.. whether it be bbc/channel4 or whatever else. ... Having grown up with PBS/discovery channel I have to say that american documentaries have started to turn to crap.

    Most of the American docs these days seem to be stock footage with a voice over.. very low quality and not very interesting.. The bigger trend in american docs is a lot of 3-D animations and cheesy recreations.

    In comparison the UK docs usually have a personality on-screen who is generally an expert going through the topic, sometimes interviewing people.. with less reliance on 3D animations and recreations, and in general, more respect for the viewers intelligence they end up being much more enjoyable.

    NOVA in particular has tended towards lower quality in the past few years.. in stark comparison to HORIZON, which continues to be quite good.

    as I've seen the hype over this COSMOS series come about I can't help but think it will be a big let down... as the budgets just don't seem to be there, along with a different view of the intelligence of the viewer.

    1. Re:American tv-documentaries stink lately by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think the 3D stuff is often used poorly. I've been watching Soviet Storm and it is basically a Russian/BBC version of Battle 360 or whatever the US show was called.

      The show itself is decent, but the 3D stuff is used poorly. They don't use illustrations to show how the battles actually went. They just have lots of pictures of tanks getting blown up or whatever with lots of bullets frozen in mid-air while the camera moves around. Sure, it looks pretty, but it does nothing to tell me what happened. I'd take a 2D map where they actually plot out how the battles developed over random photos of people standing in trenches or 3D animations that don't actually give any sense of what actually happened (well, besides the fact that people were getting shot at).

      I'm not saying that you can't show actual film of the siege of Stalingrad in a show about the Siege of Stalingrad. I'm just saying that on its own it doesn't really explain what happened, and half of it is generic stuff that could have been shot anywhere, and half of that probably was.

  15. Re:Same old bore by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    There's also Iain Stewart. Strictly speaking he's a geologist, not an astronomer, but it in ends in ~ology so it's science, right? [slashdot passim]

    You might not recognise the name, since he tends to go by the alias "That Scottish git they get in when Brian Cox is busy".

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  16. The remake syndrom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, this is only a proof that current crop of producers cannot and will not come with new ideas. Using the name of a previously successful series only shows that they can't create something new that will truly motivate viewers. Moreover, modern-day producers are painfuly aware of their mediocrity, as they have effectively created a sort of culture where old ideas are milked to exhaustion and nothing new happens.

    In short, they are afraid to innovate, they chose the easy way, and the results will be shaped accordingly.

  17. Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Will he pronounce it properly, and not so it rhymes with "hoes doze"?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  18. No hopes: It is made in the US by irp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... Which means it will start with a 10 minute teaser/cliffhanger to prevent people from leaving during commercials. Then the commercial break. Then a 10 minute teaser, repeating most of what was said in the previous segment, adding like 2-3 minutes new stuff and a new cliffhanger. Commercial break. Then 10 minutes of repetition. Etc. etc.

    There are a lot of *seemingly* interesting documentaries being made in the US, but upon inspection they are mostly made to ensure viewers STAY for the COMMERCIALS.

    If you watch them without commercials, the look like they were made by retards for retards! :-/

    I will probably give it a change, but I guess I will be disappointment... Currently I'm only watching documentaries made by the BBC...

    1. Re:No hopes: It is made in the US by tomhath · · Score: 1

      If you watch them without commercials, they look like they were made by retards for retards! :-/

      Are you saying they're better or worse without commercials?

    2. Re:No hopes: It is made in the US by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Who watches TV. These should go straight to Netflix.

      On an other note, Wouldn't this be a PBS show? Not an commercial broadcaster.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:No hopes: It is made in the US by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yup. When I watch recordings without commercials it is really jarring when suddenly the show switches to recap mode and then I realize, "oh, that must have been a commercial break." They spend half of the show doing this sort of thing.

      The original Cosmos was made for PBS, which is commercial-free.

      The other poster mentioned Mythbusters, and that show drives me crazy because they constantly switch between unrelated segments with the goal of stringing you along. I'm fine with documentaries that weave together different elements into a larger story which requires some jumping around, but that is in the goal of making it all come together so that you get a really comprehensive understanding of an issue. Taking what could be 3x 9 minute mini-episodes, dicing them up, and adding 13min of recaps for continuity and 20min of commercials is just really annoying.

    4. Re:No hopes: It is made in the US by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Nope, FOX. The original Cosmos was PBS.

    5. Re:No hopes: It is made in the US by cavebison · · Score: 1

      If you watch them without commercials, the look like they were made by retards for retards! :-/ I will probably give it a change, but I guess I will be disappointment... Currently I'm only watching documentaries made by the BBC...

      Aussie here, couldn't agree with you more. I only watch BBC docos, and even then some are dodgy.

      I've given National Geographic shows a go, because I like the magazine. But their entertainment division is simply that - entertainment. Special effects and waffle. It's a real shame. Making documentaries on a commercial basis is FAIL from the start. By the time you've made all the compromises necessary, any real value in the enterprise has long since bled out.

      Here in Oz we have the ABC, bless its cotton socks. Britain has the BBC. The U.S. has public broadcasters, why was it not made by one of them? It may have actually been something special then.

  19. Re:BLASPHEMY! by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Nehemiah Scudder...

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  20. Really? by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    He's Pluto's bounty hunter.

  21. A Good Science Series by Travco · · Score: 2

    Check out "The Brain Scoop" on Youtube. It's not about the universe, but it IS done right. http://www.youtube.com/channel...

  22. Re:Just got here by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Yes it is, you imbecile. A transitive verb, to be more precise.

  23. Can't Find It by EXTomar · · Score: 1

    I don't mean that I doubt the quality or the content but I just looked for iTunes and Amazon and didn't see it. I see a lot of music with "Cosmos" in it. I see a few TV shows like "The Universe" and a good Nova special on "The Fabric of the Cosmos" but no "Cosmos" to buy and download as the episodes air. I guess I won't watch it or I'll end up watching "by other means" if I really get motivated. Or I'll wait for it to pop up on Netflix...if it shows up there and isn't throttled to hell.

    I love watching shows and content like this. Too bad I no longer love watching any sort of TV.

    1. Re:Can't Find It by Riddler+Sensei · · Score: 1

      It hasn't begun airing yet. The premiere is on March 9th.

  24. Per Aspera Ad Astra by CMOS4081 · · Score: 1

    Or Ad Astra Per Aspera which ever way you prefer. I will miss Vangelis music in th eshow but Alan Silvestri has done really good things in the past. This should have come from PBS but at least Seth McFarlane got Fox to fork over the cash to fund the show. Maybe Fox talking heads will get their IQ increased by a few points?

  25. screw screw-sorting robot x-43 by Thud457 · · Score: 1, Interesting
    ohhh, typical /. neckbeard!

    movie wasn't as good as the book, it didn't have enough Pi in it!

    Geeze you must hate every other movie except for that weird little thing Aronofsky made.

    Plus, it was better in the book by that Polish author Sagan ripped off, where the guy gets sued for his random number tables not being sufficiently random.


    And I'll never forgive Tyson shooting Pluto in the back like a damn dirty bushwhacker.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  26. American bias by UPi · · Score: 1

    When did "outside the USA" become "under a rock"? Did I miss a meeting?

    1. Re:American bias by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      That happened shortly after we won World War 2. You might not have heard, but we're just about wrapping up The American Century.

  27. Oh, medium.com, why you no respect my spacebar? by Frnak · · Score: 1

    I know that there are more pressing issues in this world of poverty and famine, but I would still like to be able to use spacebar while reading medium.com. Hit the one key that I know scrolls down a page, the one that works in every other site I've visited as long as I can remember. I want to keep reading and punching the longest key in my keyboard with a cup of coffee on my other hand.

    Medium.com seems to have a lot of interesting articles, but the competition of interesting things to read is fierce. Every little bit that nags works for the competition, and every time I need to scroll down my mind pops out of the article to curse the sites behavior.

    I could rant how irresponsible and idiotic it is to break common conventions how pages behave in browsers, but I'm not going to ;) I just hope the message somehow gets through to the people responsible at medium.com. The email didn't seem to have an impact.

  28. Best Cosmos series ever is "Reality TV" ... by davidwr · · Score: 1

    ... minus the "TV." Just look up. It's been in continuous production since well before you were born and barring divine intervention it's not expected to be cancelled any time soon.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  29. Re:From under the rock ... by jittles · · Score: 1

    These insensitive clods think I live under a rock! That's not true! I live under my mother's living room. And I had no idea this was being filmed.

  30. Re:Ferringhi by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    Well, I can see some argument in profit, because to some extent things that aren't profitable OFTEN aren't of real benefit.

    The problem becomes when you look at things from a short-sighted perspective. There are lots of things that would benefit everybody which wouldn't make a profit for anybody which we should be doing. For less than the cost of a war in Iraq we could probably all be riding in self-piloting cars, greatly reducing our oil consumption in the process as well as the number of people killed in accidents and all the costs associated with that.

    I'm not convinced that manned spaceflight is really the best place to be investing - at least not quite yet. Now, I'm all for greatly expanding the basic R&D that will make manned spaceflight actually practical in the future (better ways of getting stuff into space, terraforming, self-sustaining habitats, and so on). In a sense I'm all for spending on manned spaceflight, but doing it with manned projects on the ground, or unmanned projects in space. We're just wasting a lot of money by taking already-understood rocket designs and just constantly putting people at risk at tremendous expense just so that they can spend a week in space. Let's come up with something new, and actually spend the kind of money that is likely to make that actually happen.

  31. Re:Same old bore by camperdave · · Score: 1

    How about Amy Mainzer or Lisa Randall.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  32. Only if they keep politics out of it by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I often watch the original series for background entertainment. Sure, there is some really informative information in there such as how acolytes of people like Pythagoras, Aristotle, and Plato basically impede real science from moving forward. But then the guy spouts off on the theory of nuclear winter which turned out to be totally bogus and a fabrication of the KGB to deter NATO from placing nukes in western Europe. He just can't resist the opportunity to inject opinion knowing full well that he's A) got a captive audience by that point and B) there is no way opposing facts can be presented.

    1. Re:Only if they keep politics out of it by tragedy · · Score: 1

      But then the guy spouts off on the theory of nuclear winter which turned out to be totally bogus and a fabrication of the KGB to deter NATO from placing nukes in western Europe

      Last I checked it was still a pretty valid theory of what would happen in a widespread nuclear engagement. There's lots of argument about how severe it would be, but there aren't really any papers from anyone credible that say that it definitely would not happen.

  33. Re:did you just type that? by CauseBy · · Score: 1

    "In the process we invented the modern world"

    And the rest of you never even thank us, you're welcome... sheesh.

  34. Let's be realistic by wcrowe · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm sure it will be a great series -- I intend to watch every episode -- but let's not be stupid about it. It's not going to have a dramatic effect on the future of humanity.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  35. Re:Same old bore by CauseBy · · Score: 1

    Or also Pamela Gay.

    I dare say the AC who posted the original comment just doesn't pay attention to much astronomy, which is fine, but his comment evinces the arrogance of ignorance: he only knows one astronomer, therefore there must only be one famous astronomer.

  36. Under a rock.. by westlake · · Score: 4, Informative

    Never heard of it. And a science program for the US public is likely to be all flashy pictures and no depth.

    The series was first broadcast by the Public Broadcasting Service in 1980, and was the most widely watched series in the history of American public television until The Civil War (1990). As of 2009, it was still the most widely watched PBS series in the world. It won an Emmy and a Peabody Award, and has since been broadcast in more than 60 countries and seen by over 500 million people.

    Cosmos: A Personal Voyage

    Closed Caption; Collector's edition DVD boxed set of the complete landmark TV series by Carl Sagan; 7 NTSC DVDs - 13 one hour episodes; Fully international edition - DVD region zero, playable everywhere (requires NTSC compatible player and TV); Remastered, restored and enhanced; Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan updates; 7 subtitles languages: French, Italian, German, Spanish, Mandarin, Japanese, English for the hearing impaired); Subtitle science updates; New footage; English soundtrack in AC3 5.1 Dolby Digital Surround Sound; Bonus 5.1 Dolby Digital Surround Sound music and effects track

    Cosmos $88

  37. Re:From under the rock ... by CauseBy · · Score: 1

    He's currently the most famous science promoter in the world which is why he was the heir apparent to Carl Sagan, who used to be the most famous science promoter in the world.

  38. HOLD ON THERE, PARDNER! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    whoa, whoa, Whoa, WHOA!

    I want my full 100 year century, thankyouverymuch!
    Or is this one of those $2 American, $5 Canadian sort of things?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  39. Troll food by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    "Coincidentally" Contact was aired on national TV in Oz last night and today there's a story about the new cosmos on Slashdot. I'm not a big reader when it comes to fiction, maybe a half dozen books a year. I enjoyed Contact in print and film. At the end of the day there can be no accounting for taste - I'm sure someone, somewhere, actually enjoyed the movie adaptation of Stephen Kings "The Stand" after having read the book.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re: Troll food by nico60513 · · Score: 1

      I did. I admit it. I enjoyed "The Stand" miniseries, long after I read (and enjoyed) the book. What I did not enjoy was the re-released book with 400 more pages. Most of the material cut for the original book was stuff that should have been cut.

    2. Re:Troll food by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      "The Stand" was a very entertaining miniseries. Was it anywhere near as good as the book? M-o-o-n, that spells nope.

  40. Couch Potato Head. by westlake · · Score: 1

    Sorry Dr. Tyson, I don't watch FOX. Not for a long time. Not planning on starting now either.

    Watch it on National Geographic.

  41. I'd buy that for a dollar! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    are you suggesting... Lions In Space!

    kickstarter link, please!
    I'm sure PETA would complain. But that's a feature, right?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:I'd buy that for a dollar! by IHateEverybody · · Score: 1

      are you suggesting... Lions In Space!

      Already been done.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Does this .sig make my butt look big?
  42. A rock, you say? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Nobody lives under a rock, but we all live on one. The 3rd one from the Sun, to be exact.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins