Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech It's funny. Laugh. Media Television Science

BBC To Air First Televised Sperm Race 60

Posted by timothy from the reality-teevee dept.
weekendwarrior1980 writes "BBC 3, a digital TV channel in the UK, is televising a race involving the sperm of presenters Dr Mike Leahy and Zeron Gibson. The sperm race will be part of the educational Lab Rats series. Gibson is a comedian and Leahy is a scientist. The network considers this a 'creative risk' but wants to reach out to an audience that avoids educational shows. The show will be broadcasted on April 15th at 2330 BST. Future shows will examine sleep deprivation and centrifugal force."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BBC To Air First Televised Sperm Race More

BBC To Air First Televised Sperm Race

Comments Filter:

  • Reality TV (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Where do we draw the line?

  • Wow.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Afromelonhead ( 730368 ) <ryan.scott.adamsNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday April 12, 2004 @11:51PM (#8844463)
    I wonder where they're racing to?

  • One of those uplifting thoughts... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ieshan ( 409693 ) <ieshan@@@gmail...com> on Monday April 12, 2004 @11:56PM (#8844500) Homepage Journal
    You know those times in life when you don't think you've won at anything, when everything is dim, when life seems like it can't get any worse...

    Just remember.

    You beat ALL those other sperm to the egg.

    You won at something.

  • CENTRIPETAL FORCE (Score:5, Insightful)

    by viperstyx ( 578360 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @11:58PM (#8844511) Homepage Journal
    i really hope they mean centripetal force...otherwise there wont be much educating goin on.
    • Bah, centripetal force is just as fictional:

      Centripetal force is a resultant force (since in circular motion an object undergoes constant acceleration). As used in most physics classes (etc.), it is introduced as a compensatory fictional force that makes a non-inertial frame of reference seem like an inertial one.

      Centrifugal force is the counter-force to centripetal force, so it is fictional too. But it is the perceived force in one of those rotating things (I can't remember the name at the moment).

      • Re:CENTRIPETAL FORCE (Score:4, Informative)

        by Captain Nitpick ( 16515 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @02:41AM (#8845238)
        Centripetal force is a resultant force (since in circular motion an object undergoes constant acceleration). As used in most physics classes (etc.), it is introduced as a compensatory fictional force that makes a non-inertial frame of reference seem like an inertial one.

        Centripetal force is real. If there was no centripetal force, there would be no acceleration, and the object in question would not follow a circular path. In the classic "bucket on a rope" example, the centripetal force on the bucket is applied by the rope.

        Centrifugal "force" is not the counter-force to centripetal force, and indeed, can exist even in the absence of centripetal force.

        • Re:CENTRIPETAL FORCE (Score:3, Informative)

          by kidgenius ( 704962 )
          Centripetal is a real force. It is the force from the body to the center of it's rotation. It's normal to the direction of travel.
          Centrifugal force should be called by it's real name, which is easier to pronounce....inertia
          • > Centripetal is a real force.

            True, since you're accelerating, there's a net force on you.

            > It is the force from the body to the center of it's rotation.

            This can use some clarification.

            It is the net force on the body towards the center of rotation. But the net force has to be contributed from somewhere, and that's usually not from the body itself.

            e.g. when you're sitting in a centrifugal machine you're constantly accelerating towards to center of rotation. That is the net force on you. But indeed

        • Centrifugal "force" is not the counter-force to centripetal force, and indeed, can exist even in the absence of centripetal force.

          It can't "exist" because it's not a real force. Centrifugal is an apprent or imaginary force. It's easy to explain why we feel we're being pushed away from the centre of the arc with Centrifugal force, but that's not what really happens. Centripetal force is the force that's causing the object to constantly accelerate towards the centre. Since our body has an inertia, its

          • It can't "exist" because it's not a real force.

            I know that it's not real. But it can appear to exist when centripetal force does not exist.

            • Are you still talking about uniform circular motion? I always thought a centripetal force must exist in uniforum circular motion.
              • Are you still talking about uniform circular motion? I always thought a centripetal force must exist in uniforum circular motion.

                Centripetal force must exist in uniform circular motion. But centrifugal "force" does not require uniform circular motion in order to appear to exist, only a rotating reference frame.

    • Centrifugal force is a perfectly reasonable topic for discussion, since quite a few people seem a bit fuzzy - or just plain wrong - about the idea (see other replies).

      To set the record straight: A "centripetal" force is any force that causes an object to move in a circular path. When swinging something on a rope, the centripetal force is the tension in the rope. With orbiting planets, the centripetal force is gravity.

      "Centrifugal force" is a fictional force invented to allow one to use Newton's laws in

    • Good page defining centripetal, centrifugal, and coriolis forces and explaining the difference between them [gsu.edu].

      Here's the short explanation of why the centrifugal force is "imaginary": The centrifugal force is used only by people who are in rotating frames (for example: standing on the edge of a turntable) to explain why balls they drop tend to fall away from them instead of straight down. An observer who is not rotating needs no centrifugal force to explain this: the ball simply travels in a straight lin

      • Centrifugal force is no more imaginary that gravity. Since Einstein we've all had to get used to the idea that what you measure depends on your frame of reference. In a rotating frame centrifugal force passes every test for being a force. In fact, locally it's indistinguishable from gravity.

        Gravity looks fictional to someone in freefall who can't feel a thing.

        • But you can always tell whether or not you're in a rotating frame. Centrifugal force is never necessary to explain the motion of objects because you can always just use a non-rotating frame. There is no analagous way to get rid of gravity; it is necessary to explain the movements of objects in space.

  • And the winner gets... (Score:5, Funny)

    by azuroff ( 318072 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @12:13AM (#8844597)
    ...18 years of child support payments!

  • Gambling (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jafuser ( 112236 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @01:46AM (#8845001)
    You know, somewhere, someone is taking bets on this...

  • what for? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Halfbaked Plan ( 769830 )
    but wants to reach out to an audience that avoids educational shows.

    Why? To get some raw ratings numbers? Why 'reach out' in this way? Is there some educational purpose they have in mind? If it's an educational program, and they do something 'spectacular' to get an audience, but cease in the process to be an educational program.... why?

    • Re:what for? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by norton_I ( 64015 ) <hobbes@utrek.dhs.org> on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @02:42AM (#8845244)
      The sperm race may be a gimmick, but it doesn't preclude educational content. There are lots of educational things you can put into a program centered around a sperm race. Also, it isn't necessarily stupid -- the characteristics that make sperm win races are almost certainly related to the probability of sucessful conception.

      If an educational program loses its audience, it ceases to educate.
  • "BBC 3, a digital TV channel"

    Also a mess of logos, branding and other on-screen, in-programme advertising junk. A channel that I pay for with my license fee but can't stand to watch because of the aforementioned distracting junk. A channel that I *must* pay for if I own a television, otherwise I'll go to jail. Yeah, I love BBC3.
    • To put it simply: don't watch TV if you don't want to pay the TV tax. What really annoys me is the letters The Licensing Centre sends me. Do I have to prove that I don't have a TV? Does everyone must have a TV? No, radio and the net is good enough for me. If I want to watch a movie, I can always buy/rent a DVD.

      When I watched TV, I preferred BBC channels to the other ones, just because they didn't have the ads. I would be happy to pay the licensing fee if I want ad-free TV. What I can't convince myself is if

      • And what do you watch those DVDs on? Your computer monitor? A dedicated non-TV display?

        The quandary I'm in at the moment is that at the end of my current TV license I intend to stop watching television. There are many programmes that I want to watch but I have objections to some of the BBC's policies and therefore I will choose to no longer finance them.

        The law, as it stands at the moment, is that if I stop funding the BBC then I am not allowed to watch any other channels either, so I will obey the law. I

        • Re:BBC3 (Score:5, Informative)

          by Gossy ( 130782 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @06:05AM (#8846002)
          But I still want to be able to watch DVDs on my widescreem TV. Doh! That will make me a criminal. Because the TV will theoretically be "capable of receiving a television signal" (because I could plug a portable aerial into it) I'll be legally obliged to pay for a TV license, even though I'll never watch television.

          You'll be glad to hear then that you're wrong. :)

          Remove the aerial, detune the TV (just reset the channel data), and notify the TV Licensing guys. Tell them your TV is only being used for DVDs/games and you then you don't have to pay. This info hidden away on the TVL site somewhere, and it's what I did.

          They emailed me back to say they'd come round and check (they haven't), and that i'd be noted in the database so they don't send me letters demanding I pay up.

          • I do have a TV License (be a bit hypocritical if I didn't, working at the BBC and all), but they still send me letters complaining. They have no right to enter your property without a search warrent and police officers, or your permission.
        • I have a 19" VDU which is more than enough for my purposes. I live alone and this screen is large enough for my purposes. Some people would buy a huge plasma/LCD but I think there is no good reason to buy these for my purposes. Obviously you have a different situation.

          AFAIK (and IANAL) as long as your TV is not capable of receiving TV input you are alright. This covers RGB and composite inputs. If you don't have a tuner this means you don't have a receiver. Licensing Centre licenses receivers and these cove

        • TV Licence is an inaccurate name. Check the back of the licence; the truth, as usual, is in the small print. I can't remember what it says exactly, but the licence allows you to receive broadcast signals. You don't need a licence to have the ability to receive broadcast signals, only actually to receive them. So technically you don't even need to detune your telly, but if you did voluntarily undergo a TV inspection (which you don't have to), they might try to argue that since you have only unplugged the

        • Re:BBC3 (Score:2)

          by Gid1 ( 23642 )

          When I moved, I ditched my 46" TV and digital cable for a 3" black and white portable, the idea being that if a TV is battery powered, it doesn't need to be licenced (well, that's the gist of it. It's more complex than that.) I have a 15" LCD (Apple Studio Display) for my PS2 for watching DVDs and playing games.

          I've found that although I was watching 6-8 hours a day of TV, I now watch about 1 hour a month, and that's when I'm staying with friends, and I don't miss it in the slightest.

          There's about o

  • If I were to read this on an SF book, I wouldn't believe it. Now I seriously start to think that western society has decayed enough to be really really silly. First Big Brother craze, then this.

    Does this mean wanking is a sport from now on??

    • I don't get it, why is it considered a "decay" when people watch sperms race to see what kind of lifestyle affects reproductivity? They've applied scientific method to a useful goal, I don't see anything wrong with it.

      I would actually consider public acceptance to this event as an advancement. It is good that people see sex as a norm of life now instead of an embargo in the past.

  • Racetrack? (Score:2, Funny)

    by kzadot ( 249737 )
    Which lucky lady gets to donate the "racetrack"?

  • It's not the first televised sperm race (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gary Destruction ( 683101 ) * on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @04:50AM (#8845767) Journal
    They've never seen the movie "Look who's talking"
  • would quality pr0n be considered an unfair advantage?
    :D

  • Cheating? (Score:3, Funny)

    by bcattwoo ( 737354 ) on Tuesday April 13, 2004 @05:25PM (#8853197)
    My wife helps me with my time trials at home, but I often get called for *ahem* "false starts".

Slashdot Top Deals

And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones

Close