Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kevlar Protects Cables From Sharks, Experts Look For Protection From Shark Week

Posted by samzenpus on from the just-when-you-thought-it-was-safe-to-turn-on-the-TV dept.

Brandon Butler writes As an ode to Shark Week: Sharks have been known to show an appetite for fiber cables underwater, and last week a Google official said to prevent sharks from wreaking havoc on the company's trans-Pacific fiber lines, it wraps them in Kevlar. It's believed that the emission of electrical currents from the fiber piping is mistaken by sharks occasionally as prey. In related news, a growing number of scientists are becoming disgruntled with the Discovery network's sensationalist programs. Many shark experts are refusing to work with the channel after such programs as their Megalodon "documentary" and their latest Shark of Darkness (not to mention the mermaid special, which was sadly missing a singing crab.)

Sockatume writes The Verge has an article on Discovery's hugely successful Shark Week, discussing how the increasing sensationalist special event misrepresents science and exploits nature and local history for shock value. Scientists who appeared in and were misrepresented by the channel's programming are beginning to encourage their peers to stay away from the Discovery network, which stands by the programming 's viewing figures.

29 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. Does fiber containing photons have current? by postbigbang · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is this just static building up along the lining, or is there actual photonic/electrical conversion going on?

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    1. Re:Does fiber containing photons have current? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's actual photonic capacitance causing the induced charge within the lining. Some recent research has been done into reducing the self-capacitance of synthetic cable sheathing, and counterpolarization of the cable's dielectric field has proven to be one of the more effective methods. The main problem is that it increases the impedance to an unacceptable level, causing ghosting. But using systemic impedance matching has been found to mitigate this effect.

    2. Re:Does fiber containing photons have current? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the article it mentions that power is run on the lines to power repeaters to keep the signal going. This is what causes the electrical current.

    3. Re:Does fiber containing photons have current? by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Repeaters are powered by a constant direct current passed down a conductor near the center of the cable. All repeaters in a cable are powered in series. Power feed equipment (PFE) is installed at the terminal stations on the land. These PFEs inject huge voltage into the line - 3,000, 4,000, and up to 10,000 volts - to power each repeater on the cable (now you can understand why Jaws went to shark heaven after his mid-morning snack).

      http://www.networkworld.com/ar...

    4. Re:Does fiber containing photons have current? by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...or it's the thousands of volts pumped into the cables to power the repeaters required every couple hundred kilometers.

    5. Re:Does fiber containing photons have current? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Funny

      You have found a field so obscure that I am unable to tell if that is nonsense technobabble, or just science beyond my level of understanding.

    6. Re:Does fiber containing photons have current? by Rei · · Score: 2

      in an 11,000 volt cable

      Actually, since it's for optical data transfer, not power transmission, it's a 11,000 volt line. When it's for power transmission, it's called magma.

      --
      "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
    7. Re:Does fiber containing photons have current? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Mr. LaForge, is that you?

  2. Of course sharks attack fiber cables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fiber carries light from fricken' lasers

  3. The Discovery channel? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Informative

    Discovery Channel is the biggest joke going on TV now. Seems like career suicide for any rreputble scientist.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:The Discovery channel? by anarcobra · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't know, I think the History channel (aka Conspiracy channel) might beat them for number 1.

    2. Re:The Discovery channel? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't know, I think the History channel (aka Conspiracy channel) might beat them for number 1.

      I just knew someone would bring them up. You are definitely correct. The H2 Channel is right up there too. They were showing Mayan apocalypse shows months after we were all destroyed.

      And to think, once upon a time they were actual decent networks. Now it's ancient alien swamp logging pawn shop owners.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:The Discovery channel? by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dunno, it seems to be part of a larger trend:
      Discovery Channel -- full of fiction and unscientific crap
      History Channel -- full of fiction and unscientific crap
      Science Fiction Channel -- full of fiction about unscientific crap (its supposed to be fiction about scientifically plausible stuff -- if they want magic even that would be acceptable if only they would invent a name for it instead of pretending electromagnetism is magical)
      Politicians -- full of fiction and unscientific crap

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    4. Re:The Discovery channel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Aliens are responsible for that.

    5. Re:The Discovery channel? by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

      They were showing Mayan apocalypse shows months after we were all destroyed.

      What, everybody's still here?! Oh man! I am so late for work...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:The Discovery channel? by TheLink · · Score: 2

      Look at the amount of ignorance and stupidity around? See the number of university graduates thinking hoax mails/posts are true and spreading them...

      So what would any sociopathic channel boss prefer to run? Stuff that most people would watch and talk about, or stuff that only a minority would enjoy?

      It's about making money not educating people. That's why actually "public TV" can be a good thing. It's not like the private sector would care or even if they did at first, the $$$ pressures would change them.

      Compare National Geographic's narration for their octopus vs shark video-
      2006: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      2007: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      I prefer the 2006 narration - less annoying. But I guess most viewers would prefer the 2007 version?

      --
    7. Re:The Discovery channel? by Brainguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hey at least the Sci-Fi channel had the courtesy to change its name to "Syfy" when they realized they had strayed far from their roots, kind of like how food products that don't really contain the ingredient they purport to be based on will change that ingredient's name slightly in their name(Cheez, etc.).

      At the very least the History Channel should put ironic quotes around the word "History."

    8. Re:The Discovery channel? by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Both are terrible, and started going downhill around the same time, racing each other to the bottom - beginning in 2005 (when you started getting shows like Deadliest Catch and Decoding the Past, which became the prototype for many future series of increasingly less "reality"), and then full force by 2007 where you start getting too many shows to name.

      One thing that drives me crazy almost as much as the blatant pseudoscience presented as fact is the extensive acting presented as reality. I mean, okay, I get it, a purely "reality" program is pretty much impossible, the very requirements of filming it make it so. Even in stuff like Les Stroud's "solo" work he always had a base camp just a couple kilometers away from him and stayed in communication with them by radio. But now the stage guidance, product promotion, and "weekly scripted adventures" have gotten so absurd and obvious, they don't even try to hide it any more. I thought that they couldn't get any lower than the bogus survival show Man vs. Wild (where the host pretended to be living in homemade shelters and surviving off wild food, when he was actually staying in luxury hotels and show consultants prepped everything from making "rafts" for him to releasing "wild" animals for him to catch). But now almost all of their shows are like that or even worse. And the product promotion, my god - have you seen the Pawn Stars plugging for Skype? If you're going to have your "reality show" stars plug a product in your show, at least get people who can act.

      The changes are so visible with time, too. Take Mythbusters for example - watch some of the early eps and compare with the modern eps and look at how much more is obviously staged acting with everyone reciting a script (not to the extent of Smash Labs, but still). Apparently Discovery Communications has decided that this is what people want to see - bad actors going on "daily adventures" and having "witty banter".

      --
      "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
    9. Re:The Discovery channel? by StikyPad · · Score: 2

      I don't/didn't have a problem with Deadliest Catch. It's definitely jumped the shark (to stick with the theme of this "article"), having long outlived the point where one can get a better appreciation for the industry, but I still enjoy it enough to watch if it's on. I could do without the explosion of reality shows that followed in it's wake though.

      Shark Week definitely jumped itself last year with Megalodon, and that seems to be the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately. I will admit that I'm glad to see less muddying the waters with "sharks aren't dangerous, 'mkay" nonsense though. Nobody would assert that a lion mistook a human for a gazelle, but apologists insist that sharks just get confused when they attack people. The fact is that sharks eat protein, humans are a source of protein, and sharks don't mind eating us.

      As for the History Channel, it started its descent long before 2005. In the 90s, it was facetiously called the Hitler Channel, as easily half of its programming was dedicated to WWII in Europe. You could've made a drinking game out of it -- if you wanted to be three sheets to the wind. It seemed like the addition of conspiracy shows was trying to capitalize on the popularity of the X-Files at the time, but that's just my perception.

      How many nautical phrases was that, me hearties? Arrr!

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
  4. Wow! by Arker · · Score: 5, Funny

    They wrap the sharks in kevlar? Now there is an exciting job. How much does it pay?

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  5. Most documentaries suck by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For the past 15 years, nearly all the channels such as history channel, discovery, etc have been nearly wothless, waste your time with ratings tactics, etc. Some physics series (NDT, Brian Cox) and maybe animal planet being an exception?

    It's easier just to read up on the rest without the bullshit, the commercials, and the ratings grab tactics. Even on netflix, it's rare that a documentary is worth watching, because of the editing geared towards TV.

    It's telling when the most worthwhile educational show the last years came out on Fox.

    1. Re:Most documentaries suck by rewindustry · · Score: 2

      generally it has been my impression that most of the original bbc documentary work has been quite reasonable...

      to the contrary, although it's subtle, the same documentaries as reworked by discovery (tm), history (tm), etc, on this side of the "pond" are somehow not quite as satisfying..

      anyone else have a similar impression?

      i admit i've not wasted much time on the american feeds, am really only commenting based on the bits i've had to watch on other people's screens.

    2. Re:Most documentaries suck by antdude · · Score: 2

      What about PBS, BBC, etc.? So, what documentaries are still good these days?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:Most documentaries suck by evilviper · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's telling when the most worthwhile educational show the last years came out on Fox.

      No. PBS is still huffing along, churning out Nova, Frontline, Nature, American Experience, Wild!, Secrets of the Dead, History Detectives, Charlie Rose, This Old House, and more, like they have for decades.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  6. "stands by the viewing figures" is telling... by trims · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Discovery Channel has long since gone the way of the History Channel, and now bears only coincidental moments of truth.

    All they care about are ratings, and if lying to the public means ratings, well, obviously, Discovery is all over that.

    As a scientist quoted in any of the current Shark Week "dramas" (they don't even rate the "docudrama" label), I'd sue Discovery for misrepresentation and libel. They quoted out of context and stitched together several scientist's different takes (not to mention failing to inform them about the subject being talked about, rather lying to them about the nature of the interview). As a consequence, the "scientist" never said any of the things they were purported to say.

    Don't watch Shark Week. Don't watch Discovery/History/TLC or anything like that any more. heck, even NatGeo is bad. It's a shame.

    --
    There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
  7. Obligatory joke by manu0601 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Kevlar does not protect from wireshark!

  8. Yes, for repeater modules. 3000-4000VDC by SuperBanana · · Score: 2
    Transatlantic fiber optic cables have repeater modules spaced along the cable to re-boost/time optical signals. They're powered off several thousand volts DC; 3k-4k.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_landing_point

    (for example. There are also some cool youtube videos on this subject, I believe.)

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
  9. you know what this means.... by shop+S+Mart · · Score: 2

    looks like shark week has jumped the shark

    --
    "all i wanted was a pepsi..."
  10. Nielsen by tepples · · Score: 2

    Who gets to decide what week is what?

    Part of that is the job of Nielsen Media Research, which designates a few specific weeks per year as sweeps weeks. In particular, Shark Week is the name used by Discovery for an annual week-long programming block. And lately it has had splash-over synergy with another network's Sharknado .