Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media Science

TV For Nerds: Cable Science Network? 174

Posted by CmdrTaco from the i-can't-decide-if-its-overkill dept.
Ridgelift writes "Wired is covering The Cable Science Network. New York Times science writer Sandra Blakeslee puts it best: "I cover a lot of meetings and I can just see things unfolding, but we can't cover it all in print media, so it would be wonderful to have things like talks and plenary sessions accessible to the public. There are a lot of C-SPAN junkies, and I think there would be a similar interest (in science TV) from the American public." There's also a home page for the network here." Seems like only two months ago we discussed the possibility.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TV For Nerds: Cable Science Network? More

TV For Nerds: Cable Science Network?

Comments Filter:

  • TV for nerds? already got it. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:20PM (#7758265)
    It's called the SciFi Channel.

    • Re:TV for nerds? already got it. (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yes, with really scientific nerdy shows like "Crossing Over".

    • Re:TV for nerds? already got it. (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:30PM (#7758354)
      It's called the SciFi Channel.

      no, it's the Playboy Channel.
    • ...or the Science Channel. The Science Channel has been airing for a few years--I believe it was formerly called the Discovery Science Channel, or maybe it was the original Discovery Channel. They have good programming--the only problem is, they rerun stuff way too much. Wayyyy too much. Alot of the programming has been broadcast for at least a year. Still, if you haven't seen it before, it's new to you...

  • How long will it last? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DarkHand ( 608301 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:20PM (#7758267)
    Hopefully a channel like this can stick to what it was meant to show. Remember TLC? Didn't that used to stand for The Learning Channel? When did it become The Trading Spaces And Other Non Educational Crud Channel?
    • Actually, the 'L' in 'TLC' now stands for "reaLity show crap"
    • > Hopefully a channel like this can stick to what it was meant to show. Remember TLC? Didn't that used to stand for The Learning Channel? When did it become The Trading Spaces And Other Non Educational Crud Channel?

      With Ann Druyan on board, it might work.

      But I feel your pain. I gave up on "science" channels when they started airing stuff like "Mysteries of the Paranormal". I mean, come on, some of the material on TLC and Discovery is one step away from John "World's Biggest Douche" Edwards'

      • > Hopefully a channel like this can stick to what it was meant to show. Remember TLC? Didn't that used to stand for The Learning Channel? When did it become The Trading Spaces And Other Non Educational Crud Channel?


        With Ann Druyan on board, it might work.
        I hope we can say as much fos some of her other projects. [norml.org]

    • Re:How long will it last? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:27PM (#7758326)
      No, TLC == The Ladies Channel

      Trading Spaces
      A Wedding Story
      A Dating Story
      A Baby Story
      A Makeover Story
      Rescue 911
      Trauma: Life in the Emergency Room
      What Not To Wear
      While You Were Out
    • Or like THC. Its supposed to be the History Channel but its really just the World War II channel.

    • Re:How long will it last? (Score:5, Funny)

      by NitsujTPU ( 19263 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:31PM (#7758360)
      I can see it now.

      This week on "CERN: Accelerating and Smashing" we use big voices and exciting language to exaggerate the proportions of microscopic explosions. BOOM!

      Followed by "Trading Spaces: Faculty"
    • Isn't this going to be just like Discovery Science channel?

      That's the only channel I watch when it comes to science, (maybe a little of the Discovery Wings). TLC and the other Science channels really don't show much.

      BUT even the Discovery Science channel tends to show the same documentaries and episodes of shows. I think it needs some new material, but I still watch something new every other night at least.

      One last thing..

      AHHHHH!!! The Atmosphere!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

    • Re:How long will it last? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Agent Snith ( 713405 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:36PM (#7758398)

      When we first made the Learning Channel, it was a paragon of enlightenment and culture, an educational wonderland broadcasting in perfect digital quality. However for whatever reason, people rejected the programming, whole budgets were lost. So we had to build a new TLC, one more consistent with the flawed culture of Corporate Network Television. What you see now, the Trading Spaces marathons, the Monster Truck rallys, are a direct result of that.

    • Learning is subjective (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hellfire ( 86129 ) <deviladv@IIIgmail.com minus threevowels> on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:44PM (#7758457) Homepage
      Okay first of all, from the male perspective, TLC is crap because its nots about geek stuff, or science, or history, or any of those things geeks value as learning.

      Now try to put yourself in the place of the average woman, stay at home or otherwise. Women learn a lot from that home decorating stuff! You might be surprised what you might learn. Also there all those medical shows which tell you about medical conditions people have and stories of what they have gone through. Your average female TV viewer, especially the stay at home mom, eats that stuff up, and its still learning!

      I'm not belittling women's TV by far, I'm in fact showing that comments like the parent to this are subjective, usually based on the male or geek (or both) point of view. Learning is subjective. Just because it's not science, history, or math doesn't mean its not learning. The channel just switched tracks from men to women. Yes it was done for business reasons, switching to a better demographic, and yes I, personally, absolutely do not like, what they show now, but the discovery and history channels filled in for me quite nicely, and this science channel will help too.

      I watch Queer Eye for the Straight guy (okay that's on Bravo but its the same idea), and it's decidedly a "chick show." But DAMN do you know how much stuff guys could learn from that? And I'm not talking about "learning to match clothes so you can be superficial." I'm talking about things that matter (or should matter) to geeks like:

      1) Getting your house organized so you don't look like a slob and can find things.
      2) Keeping and staying healthy and reasonably well groomed.
      3) Learning to cook more than ramen noodles.
      4) Looking and acting like a guy a woman might want to go to bed with.
      5) Looking like a guy someone might want to hire.
      6) keeping your girlfriend happy!!

      I call that learning... maybe that's why the gender gap is still so wide, because men don't think these things that women consider learning about are learning.

      Think of it this way... this is a low level sociology channel. Be fascinated by the interations of people and their living spaces!
      • So then should TLC stand for The Ladies Channel? :)
      • I like Trading Spaces. It's a dumb, goofy show that you can watch with your girlfriend. And Paige Davis is cute as hell. It doesn't bother me that TLC has drifted away from Learning. I don't expect to learn from TV (except for the C-SPAN channels, which I'm addicted to).
      • All that learning has really been tempting me to get myself a television. I am information-ravenous, and it's taken every ouce of willpower I have to not succumb to the temptation to subscribe to cable television for access to TLC, the History Channel, Discovery, The Food Network, and so forth, but this... This could totally smash my resolve.

        Oh television... It's been years. Should I give in?
      • What you describe really isn't that much different than a hypothetical Martha Stewart Channel.
    • the Discovery channel went that way as well. I sure miss Next step, invention and all the other cool stuff they had on there durring prime time.

    • TLC (Score:1)

      by respite ( 320388 )
      TLC still is educational, where else are you going to learn the essential skills of survival, like how to make sure an insane designer doesn't completely wreck you're neighbors home?!
    • Direct from the website

      ---
      Trading Spaces - Ever sit in someone's home and wonder what would happen if you stripped, ripped and painted as you pleased? Find out during this one-of-a-kind decorating show when two sets of neighbors swap keys to transform a room in each other's home. They have two days, a set budget, and they're not allowed back into their own homes until the moment of truth. This is how-to with a neighborly twist.
      ---

      Actually, while not main streem education, it's actually a decent show to

    • I must say I don't give this one much of a chance. It's like C-SPAN--except it's not.

      ...the challenge any new cable channel faces first is getting funding, which Bingham is working on.

      I'd be interested to know where the funding is going to come from. C-SPAN works because it is funded by the cable industry, so they can be (delightfully) boring. Unless they get a similar arrangement with some group or other, they're going to go the way of The Learning Channel.

      Next, he'll have to deal with cable carriers

    • Remember TLC? Didn't that used to stand for The Learning Channel?

      Why pick on TLC? You're neglecting TechTV, Discovery, and Discovery's Children (Discovery Science, Discovery Wings, etc). They all started off good and gradually drifted to 100 IQ pap (which is still 20 points above broadcast).

      I don't understand why in television, as in music, they don't seem to recognize that catering to non-imbeciles is a workable business model. Magazines haven't all drifed to lowbrow populism, what makes them differe
    • I hope they keep it low-budget at the beginning so it can survive. The problem with a lot of new ventures (the .com bust providing a notable collection of examples) is that they grossly overestimate the potential market, spend lavishly on huge productions, then boom - the money's gone and they disappear. On the other hand if they start small and grow slowly as the market, if there is one, materializes, they can survive. There's a huge amount of classic material out there, and how much can the royalties on
      • It started (IIRC) as a channel showing any movie that they could buy for $20. Eventually it grew into what it is today. Now, IMHO, they hit a peak with Farscape and have gone down slightly since then, but I'm optimistic enough to think that that was just "a peak" and not "the peak." I think Stargate SG-1 is a good series (but that started a while ago, as it's in the middle of season 7), and their "You are watching SciFi" spots are entertaining (the new ones for the Food Network are good too). But UFO in
  • If they include Mr. Wizard!

  • Honestly (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Amsterdam Vallon ( 639622 ) *
    I realize I'm a professor and very well educated, but so are you guys (after all, anyone using Linux is probably in the top 3 percentile for raw intelligence).

    That being said, I DON'T WATCH TV. There are so many other great things I could be doing, like playing with my kids or doing research or spending quality time with my wife or watching LOtR on DVD.

    I want my science news from respectable sources (Nature, Wired, etc.), not from some silly television show based on CORPORATE INTERESTS like profits, prof
    • so why can't i find any indication that slaughter college exists?

      because it probably doesn't.

      poser!
    • I realize I'm a professor and very well educated, but so are you guys (after all, anyone using Linux is probably in the top 3 percentile for raw intelligence).

      That being said, I DON'T WATCH TV.

      So now we know this guy [theonion.com] has a Slashdot account...

    • Re:Honestly (Score:3, Interesting)

      by venicebeach ( 702856 )
      I realize I'm a professor and very well educated, but so are you guys (after all, anyone using Linux is probably in the top 3 percentile for raw intelligence). That being said, I DON'T WATCH TV.

      Hey, I am a research scientist too and I actually enjoy watching tv sometimes, especially when the programming contains useful information, whether it be about modern social relationships (E!), Hitler (THC), or coporate control of mass media (CNN).

      Just because we are smart does not mean we are immune to entert
    • I second that.

      My wife and I haven't owned a standalone TV set for years. We do have a tuner card in our Gentoo box, but it's for the playstation.

      We tried digital cable out at our last apartment. We gave that up fast, it was regular cable with 20 HBO's. We fell back on regular cable. Until I realized there were 3 shows I watched on a regular basis. Everything else was something to keep us busy. I was sick of paying to watch commercials. And it was getting worse every day.

      Whenever I do go over someone's

  • Why not? (Score:4, Funny)

    by sfjoe ( 470510 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:23PM (#7758289)
    At home, I have 293 channels of TV for dorks and boobs [fox.com], why not ONE channel for nerds?

  • Uhh... (Score:5, Funny)

    by radicalskeptic ( 644346 ) <<x> <at> <gmail.com>> on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:23PM (#7758290)
    By focusing mainly on medical developments and boiling everything down to 30 seconds, science is often sensationalized and distorted, said Sandra Blakeslee, a science writer for The New York Times.

    Of course we don't have any problems like that on Slashdot, where everything is reported accurately and with little fanfare...

    Oh wait, this just in, THE MILKY WAY JUST GOT BIGGER! [slashdot.org]

  • .meh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:24PM (#7758295)
    We do have science channels on cable.

    Discovery Channel (and it's numerous topic-specific offshoots) - Unfortunately, they are 33% infomercials and the remaining programming is usually uninteresting things like re-runs of rescue 911 and "rescue emergency" and other non-scientific things. At best, you'll get a piece of less-than-laymen's scientific programming.

    The Learning Channel - unfortunately, this is really now The Ladies Channel, what with A Baby Story, A Dating Story, A Wedding Story, A Makeover Story, What Not To Wear, Trading Spaces and the dozens of other women-centric, non-learning, non-science shows.

    • Re:.meh (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Maybe that's the same reason girls are now doing better in school than boys. [coursework.info] It's not the same material. It's la-la fluff crap instead of hard knowledge.
    • The Discovery channel lost me when it became a showcase for the chopper-bike industry. I want science, not some sticker-designing west coast chopper guy ordering some poor haps around. What would you rather watch, a tour of the Google company, or "jesse james" designing the dump-truck-limo-helicopter?

      I like Bikes as much as the next guy, and that chopper reality show is pretty funny, but move those shows over to Spike TV and give me some science! Whoever was joking about Mr Wizard was more right than they

  • Even if it gets on the air... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:24PM (#7758298)
    It will be cancelled. You can't compete with sound bites.

    Supposing even that there are plenty of people interested, showing conference proceedings C-Span style will fail. Conferences are too narrow for this to work. Even when I attend a conference in my area of expertise, I follow only about half the talks, and would need to read up a bit to follow the rest. To someone outside my field, they are all probably undecipherable. So even though I like the possibility of viewing conferences, I doubt enough viewers will follow it to be marketable.
    • I hear that.

      A better approach would be to simply press the content on DVD and distribute it ala netflicks or local libraries. You could even go the Science journal route and sell subscriptions for home delivery.

      One good thing about covering science is that the players are already being paid to do what they do. The sets are all built. All you need is a decent camera man and a good editor. Many projects already HAVE the videos of their experiments. If you want extravigance, hire a voice actor for the narr

  • This might make me buy a TV (Score:4, Insightful)

    by corebreech ( 469871 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:24PM (#7758302) Journal
    As a Netflix subscriber I can make do without TV... most of the good shows eventually make it to DVD. Most everything else sucks.

    A channel like this however could bring me back, however, especially if it were commercial-free, like C-SPAN.

    When I had a TV I used to leave C-SPAN on all the time, and it was actually rather enjoyable, that is, until I figured out just how corrupt our government is. Then it became extremely aggravating.

    I trust the same thing wouldn't happen here.

  • Talk Show (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I can envision a Crossfire-type show about paranormal/pseudoscientific claims...
    Maybe we can get James Randi and Uri Geller to cohost.

    [/straight face]
  • I wish them well, but they will run into harsh competition for channel slots.
  • 24 / 7 nerditude is either enough to make me want to dance or enough to make baby Jesus want to cry.

    Maybe both.

  • Profit (Score:2, Funny)

    by pvt_medic ( 715692 )
    Well lets see 1) Cameras in heated stem-cell debate forum 2) ?????? 3) Profit ????
  • i mean already we have seen the discovery channel and the learning channel go towards mainstream media.
    I mean is it really possible to have a channel devoted just to science and still make a profit?
    i just don't see it happening... not big enough market and the costs would be too high. eventually they will fold and become more mainstream. ro

  • What America is he living in? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Luke727 ( 547923 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:33PM (#7758378) Homepage Journal
    I think there would be a similar interest (in science TV) from the American public.

    I think he is vastly overrating the American public. In this day and age, most people generally don't want to learn. They want to be entertained (hence gobbling down fish semen on Fear Factor). I'm not saying it's a bad idea, though. They could grab a niche market. I like the Discovery and History channels (and TLC), but too often they have "stupid" programming (weddings, babies, interior designers, etc). Also, they are not very technically oriented. You never hear anything except horsepower on most of the "good" shows. I would love it if this new deal had much more technical details in its programming, or at least went into more depth about how stuff works rather than "Look at this cool gizmo!"
    • People love learning instinctively; it is something that must be ground out of us with massive institutional schooling, and even then only partially successfully.

      However, people don't all want to learn the same things, and where does "how to change a radiator" fit into a science format? It's learning, but many people don't consider it "learning" because they still have the blinders they picked up in school about what "learning" is. If it's not an academic subject, it isn't learning.

      That said, have you lo

  • I'd like to see a YRO channel (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hanna's Goblin Toys ( 635700 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:33PM (#7758379) Homepage Journal
    24 hour coverage of DMCA, RIAA, MPAA and other tech rights issues - it would be cool to see news anchors talking about students being sued for holding down the shift key, keyboard manufacturers being sued for creating circumvention devices, and the rest of the fool's parade that is the entertainment industry these days. I think it would wake a lot of people up.

  • but how will it taste? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by denisdekat ( 577738 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:34PM (#7758386) Homepage
    I mean, is this going to be like tech tv, which to me is more like a gadgets commercial. I find that appart from few shows, most science programs are sort of thin on content. I still love Nova somehow :) I just hope this is not going to be another of those channels whose documentaries are filled with goofy re-enactments bi third rate actors whose faces you rarely see ....

  • And two months ago... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gerardrj ( 207690 ) * on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:36PM (#7758396) Journal
    Several of us posted comments pointing out that there are at least three channels that do this now. They are all run by universities and show science lectures, in depth debates, etc. These other stations, though, do also run non-science content, but they are non-commercial so you get fairly true and balanced content.

    I REALLY would like to see a channel that focuses on science for the intelligent. TLC used to be nice, then they went all foo foo, so they started the Discovery Science channel. They are now starting to run non science and non educational stuff, plus they are so beholden to ratings and the sponsors that they never run any lectures or shows that actually raise debate or cover controversial subjects.

    I'll give this new channel a shot as soon as it comes on my sattellite lineup, but I don't have any high hopes. The first show I see like "The science behind Microsoft Windows XP", the channel comes out of my lineup. Keep the programming more like NASA TV, CSPAN, UCTV, FSTV, Research Channel, etc and you'll keep me as a viewer.
    • Say what you want about Microsoft, but a show about how an OS works would be interesting to me.

      Espcially if they go into how they made certian descions, how there user testing works, and other details.
    • I've never watched TLC, simply because almost everything they show is not close-captioned. Hopefully this new science channel won't make that mistake.

  • Ressearch Channel (Score:3, Interesting)

    by boster ( 124383 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:38PM (#7758412)
    I TiVo the University of Washington Computer Science Department's colloquia each week on the Research Channel. There are a number of geekly, raw academic programs like this that might be of interest to Slashdotters [researchchannel.org] on there. I see from the schedule that there's a program on computers from George Mason University and they rebroadcasted stuff from the ACM 2003 International Conference and Trade Show, Tampa, Florida.

    Might be worth a look if you get the channel. I have it on Dish Network. It appears that it may be broadcast live on the web as well (sadly, in Windows Media).

  • I'd love to see them offer their "C-SPAN" coverage of science on-demand. I'm a C-SPAN junkie, but I'm a slave to their broadcast schedule. If on-demand programs were available, I'd make a playlist of C-SPAN and C-SN programs that I could watch when I have time, like at my desk at work ;). The network could offer preprogrammed playlists, with "anchors" introducing the streams. We could pass around RSS on the Net, like a videoblog. Slashcode revs, anyone?

  • Here's the difference. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by blair1q ( 305137 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:47PM (#7758476) Journal
    C-SPAN isn't about whether you want to see it.

    It's about congresscritters marketing themselves to you.

    It was created not because of some right to be informed, but because they want to deduct their suits and have clips of themselves being mendacious and fervent about it to show the voters back home.

    Book Time is there simply because Congress forgot to allow commercial spots to be sold. Otherwise, it'd be Lifestyles of the Profligate and Incumbent.
    • Good lord, please stop calling them "congress critters". We are not talking about fuzzy, snuggly, harmless stuffed animals. These are the people who hold the power to initiate force as a means to an end. Their business is the application of force, not cuddling.

  • And none too soon (Score:5, Funny)

    by Polyhazard ( 730570 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:48PM (#7758478)
    I was just thinking the other day about how nerds don't spend nearly enough time staring at a screen!

  • I wonder how many people will get it... (Score:4, Informative)

    by MadAnthony02 ( 626886 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:49PM (#7758485)

    There are a ton of very-narrowly-focused channels out there, but they are only available to small groups of people, it seems. I like cars and computers, so I would love to have Speedvision and TechTV, but of course my local cable company doesn't carry it in my area. I do, however, get such great channels as the golf channel, multiple religious channels, and the public access channel that shows powerpoint slides when it's not showing a blue screen of death.

  • SlashTV (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ziggyboy ( 232080 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @06:52PM (#7758518)
    Have you guys considered getting a few hours air time per week? Might be good to have SlashTV or something...

  • Content -vs- Production (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rahga ( 13479 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @07:02PM (#7758602) Journal
    Sorry, I don't see this happening.

    Last I checked, there were about 4 or 5 different flavors of the discovery channel on my digital cable box. The big difference between CSPAN and Discovery is that CSPAN is mostly an open feed for anything that wants a voice in Washington, such as, recently, the Ultimate Warrior talking at length (rest assured, amazing signal-to-noise ratio) about rights and freedoms to a youth conference. I could be wrong, but there are not hundreds of professional scientists gathered in one area at a time to debate issues and topics on a 9-to-5 basis. A public set of channels simply wouldn't have any continuous content to feed off of, unlike CSPAN.

    Discovery makes up for this with heavily-produced and well-funded edutainment. There is no CSPAN equivalent (24-hour cable networks aren't really "heavily produced"). The quality far outshines the quantity witnessed by CSPAN, though. Almost everything from TechTV's "Big Thinkers" featuring interviews with Michio Kaku and Lessig (reading a release form...~"'I waive all right to claims I make in this interview and the ability to collect royalites from TechTV and parent companies etc. etc.' ... I'm not going to sign this.") to "Monster Garage" is tastefully presented and very captivating to watch.

    I like what we've got, thank you.

  • LinkTV (Score:4, Informative)

    by mabu ( 178417 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @07:07PM (#7758652)
    One of my favorite channels on television is LINK TV [linktv.org]. This is available on DirecTV satellite and it's a wonderful resource of alternative news and information.

    While not specifically technical in nature, this network runs a lot of documentaries and shows that the mainstream media would never show. There was a great documentary shown recently where they placed Internet Kiosks in a middle eastern country and didn't tell anyone how to use them, and observed how quickly the children learned to use the Internet and what information they sought out (another segment of the show features the developer of the Kiosks meeting with Issac Asimov and watching 2001 with him! He likened the un-explained Internet kiosk to the monolith in the movie and discussed it with Asimov).

    Another great show on this network is Mosaic [linktv.org] which is a daily news program which features excerpts from news broadcasts throughout the middle east. The video footage is much more substantive and you can almost always see an entirely different angle on the daily news stories, as well as a lot more information (and best of all, J-Lo is never mentioned).

    This network is a MUST SEE channel. And had I known about it prior, it would have easily justified switching cable/sat companies.

  • Their Motto (Score:2, Informative)

    by hao2lian ( 726435 )
    CSN... Fair and Balanced.

  • So let me get this straight..... (Score:3, Funny)

    by DwarfGoanna ( 447841 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @07:17PM (#7758732)
    The goal is to make science as popular as, and have the rabid following of..........C-SPAN?!?


    We really are screwed, aren't we?

  • Learning level is important (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @07:19PM (#7758748)
    The problem with Science on TV is they pretty much have to do it for the least common denominator, which is people who know a hell of a lot less about science than your average geek/nerd.

    I don't have a T.V. and couldn't get PBS down here in Mexico anyway, so I downloaded the three part series that Nova did on String theory. While I found it mildly interesting, it was definitely dumbed down quite a bit. In fact, before I downloaded, I was thinking to myself, how could they possibly explain String theory to your average dolt. Well, they did, and because of that, I found maybe 10 minutes worth of new information in 3 hours of programming.

    Don't get me wrong, I wasn't and don't expect, a channel that's going to explain string theory in detail. I mean, how many people understand that level of math anyway? But I would have liked something a bit deeper.

    But that is exactly my point. They can't do that because they won't get enough viewers. I've tried explaining some potential geometries of the universe to my mother, using diagrams and concepts as simple as I could figure. It went completely over her head. In fact, I think after about 30 seconds, she just stopped listening even though she looked like she was listening intently.

    I thought I could explain it in a way that made sense to a lay person, but I just couldn't. And not just physics. In many topics in science, if you want to go to a depth where I'm going to learn a lot, you're not going to get a lot of viewers. Viewers = money, and folks, money is what runs TV networks. But hey, I'm curious to see what the programming is like, and I wish I could get it down here in Mexico.
  • There are a lot of C-SPAN junkies, and I think there would be a similar interest

    Nope. C-SPAN, already a legendary font of boredom, is tremendously more exciting than a hard science channel would be.

    The daily routines of both politicians and scientists are boring to watch, but politicans have two big advantages in becoming successful TV-fodder.

    1) Their job is already based on attracting the public. (At least when elections are upcoming)
    2) Their behavior is based on conflict. Conflict leads to excitmen

  • The problem I see... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Theobon ( 691491 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @07:29PM (#7758823)
    ...is that everyone is at a different level when it comes to science. Every show is either going to be too complex for some or too simple for others. Usually both. It is very hard to make a show that is deemed worthy science to someone with a graduate degree and still be understandable to a highschool student.

    The key to entertainment through science is the idea that you are learning something new. Thus for the show to be entertaining it must be something you don't already know and actually be able to teach you it. This is very hard to do.

    Discovery and TLC realized this and resorted to the lowest denomiator seeing as there are a lot more people without degrees.

  • Internet TV.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by msimm ( 580077 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @07:29PM (#7758828) Homepage
    All the other answers pretty much suck. I don't want to pay for 450 channels I don't watch and I can see any serious (long term) reason I should. Anyone with a server and enough bandwidth (and the proper licenses for the content) should be able to set up their own broadcast network. Period.

  • too many science channels? (Score:3, Informative)

    by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Thursday December 18, 2003 @07:40PM (#7758892)
    We have
    *The Discovery Channel
    *The Learning Channel
    *National Geographic Channel
    *about a quarter of PBS- NOVA, SciAm Frontiers, Frontiers,
    *some items on the Hostory Channel
    and probably others I've overlooked.

    Science journalism pretty much has to follow the general rules of drama:
    *You need an engaging theme/conflict to drive a story,
    *It has to have a proper beginning, development, and ending,
    *It needs interesting human characters.
    Often these "science dramas" take the form of mysteries to be solved, races between labs or against time, quirky characters, and so on.
    • Except the science is a cooperative effort on the part of humanity to understand the world we live it. It is hard to create a gripping story where transparency and objectivity are the ideal.

      Cable's answer: make drama up or find the outlying cases. Example: the Newton/Liebnitz vendetta. That case was not drama, it was a tragic misuse of Newton's office. Where mathmatics and science could have benefitted from the collaboration of 2 geniouses, all we ended up with was duplicated effort and conflicting notati

  • A catch phrase? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jcpii ( 253184 )
    Maybe subscribers could go online and vote for the programming they would like to see, or even submit program ideas. You could call it "TV for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."
  • I'm surprised that not more channels buy in more content produced from other countries. The best programs I have seen are made either in
    a) Britain
    b) Sweden.
    I'm sure there are lots of other quality programs made in the US and around the world that I never get to see though. Unfortunately I'm guessing that the channels that aim for the lowest common denominator are the ones that are making money...
    But there must be lots of stuff in the archives of national public TV channels around the world that is available

Slashdot Top Deals

When it is incorrect, it is, at least *authoritatively* incorrect. -- Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy

Close