Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the just-when-you-thought-it-was-safe-to-turn-on-the-TV dept.

Shark 103

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.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Does fiber containing photons have current? (3, Interesting)

postbigbang (761081) | about 3 months ago | (#47674661)

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

Re:Does fiber containing photons have current? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47674699)

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.

Re:Does fiber containing photons have current? (5, Informative)

mythosaz (572040) | about 3 months ago | (#47674739)

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

Re:Does fiber containing photons have current? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 3 months ago | (#47674797)

it's not the volts that get them, it's the amps -- obligatory "running scared" misquote

in an 11,000 volt cable (yup they go that high now), it's about 0.4 A

Re:Does fiber containing photons have current? (2)

Rei (128717) | about 2 months ago | (#47676045)

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.

Re:Does fiber containing photons have current? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 months ago | (#47674931)

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.

Like putting too much air in a balloon!

current for repeaters (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | about 3 months ago | (#47675289)

It's actual photonic capacitance causing the induced charge within the lining

I doubt this is anywhere near as significant as the 3000-4000VDC electricity for the repeater modules along the cable.

Re:Does fiber containing photons have current? (4, Funny)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 months ago | (#47675911)

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.

Re:Does fiber containing photons have current? (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47676439)

Mr. LaForge, is that you?

Re:Does fiber containing photons have current? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47674715)

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.

Re:Does fiber containing photons have current? (5, Informative)

mythosaz (572040) | about 3 months ago | (#47674719)

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... [networkworld.com]

Re:Does fiber containing photons have current? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47675353)

We have to put a stop to this before the Megalodon really goes extinct!

Re:Does fiber containing photons have current? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47674741)

The cables often transmit DC power adjacent to the fiber, to power repeaters along the length of the cable.

Yes, for repeater modules. 3000-4000VDC (2)

SuperBanana (662181) | about 3 months ago | (#47675327)

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.)

TFTFY (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47674693)

"The Puffington-Host has an article on MSNBC's hugely successful Al Sharpton Show, discussing how the increasing sensationalist special event misrepresents reality and exploits tragedy and racism for shock value. Politicians who appeared in and were misrepresented by the channel's programming are beginning to encourage their peers to stay away from the NBC network, which stands by the programming 's viewing figures."

TFTFY!

Of course sharks attack fiber cables (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47674709)

Fiber carries light from fricken' lasers

The Discovery channel? (4, Informative)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 3 months ago | (#47674721)

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

Re:The Discovery channel? (5, Informative)

anarcobra (1551067) | about 3 months ago | (#47674753)

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

Re:The Discovery channel? (5, Funny)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 3 months ago | (#47674891)

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.

Re:The Discovery channel? (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 3 months ago | (#47674933)

i tripped over a crack in the sidewalk on my way to work this morning and dropped my mod points, but you deserve one :(

Re:The Discovery channel? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47675001)

Aliens are responsible for that.

Re:The Discovery channel? (1)

JustOK (667959) | about 2 months ago | (#47676169)

Aliens are NOT responsible for the post deserving mod points.

Re:The Discovery channel? (1)

jythie (914043) | about 2 months ago | (#47677109)

How do you know? Maybe the poster is an alien attempting to discredit these truthful and insightful networks who are just trying to educate us sheep. Think about the risks they are taking just to get this programming to our eyeballs, they are under constant threat of shadowy government figures kidnapping them in the middle of the night and making it look like a simple normal moose stampede. Heros I tell you!

Re:The Discovery channel? (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 months ago | (#47677467)

Discovery channel's rebroadcast of JustOK's post: "Aliens are responsible for the post deserving mod points."

(In tiny print displayed for 1/10th of a second at the end of the rebroadcast: "Some statements may have altered to fit the content of our program.")

Re: The Discovery channel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47676437)

ayy lmao

Re:The Discovery channel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47675319)

Are you trying to imply that ghost stories like "The Haunted" and "Ancient Aliens" is not "History"? Awe, come on man.. that lady said it was really a poltergeist and that guy said the ancient Roswell really as hundreds of alien space craft...

Re:The Discovery channel? (5, Funny)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#47675521)

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...

Re:The Discovery channel? (4, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | about 2 months ago | (#47676113)

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".

Re:The Discovery channel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47676205)

What surprises me is when I watched the Discovery Channel it was a lot like the NatGeo Channel, TLC was showed things that were educational, IE common medical surgeries ect.. A&E showed bio-documentaries from Celebs, Musicians, notorious criminals, I could go on and on..

The only ones that really have stuck with anything original are HBO, but with all of their idiot self-produced shows they are becoming the next in line to fail.

Re:The Discovery channel? (2)

StikyPad (445176) | about 2 months ago | (#47676653)

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. [ussindianapolis.org]

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!

Re:The Discovery channel? (1)

jythie (914043) | about 2 months ago | (#47677131)

I have a feeling they are doing their market research by looking at youtube popularity....

Re:The Discovery channel? (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 months ago | (#47677505)

I thought that they couldn't get any lower than the bogus survival show Man vs. Wild

I forget what channel it is on (perhaps Discovery but maybe not), but there's a show that tops that (by going lower, that is) called "Naked and Afraid." They take a man and a woman, strip them naked and toss them somewhere to survive. Of course, they blur out certain things, but you still know that there's a guy and girl there in the jungle without clothes on. Why? Because, of course, some people will tune in for the added "sex factor." I stumbled upon it while flipping through channels one day and could only take about a minute of it. (During which the guy worried that huddling near the naked woman to preserve body heat would upset his wife back home. He didn't think of that before signing up for a show where he's be naked with another woman?!!!)

Re:The Discovery channel? (1)

xclr8r (658786) | about 2 months ago | (#47679653)

Yes there are some corny aspects to the show but you should watch a different episode. I recommend the Amazon episode where people are just breaking down and throwing in the towel (if they had one). There are some interesting things to learn by observation. Some of the things I've learned are:

How much I take the following for granted.

Tools

Clothes

Shoes

water

hygiene

shelter from elements and more importantly bugs/animals/wildlife.

how hard it is to hunt with sticks, spears, traps (if you have the knowledge)

how knowledge of plants can ease the prospect of infection/pain.

how quickly your health can go down hill without clean water.

what it looks like when you don't get a proper caloric intake. They do a time lapse at the end of the show.

how fighting with your partner can make a bad scenario get worse. plus a lot more stuff I can't recall at the moment.

Re:The Discovery channel? (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 months ago | (#47680177)

I did a quick Google search and it turns out it IS on the Discovery Channel. So score one more for Discovery going downhill. It's not enough to show someone trying to survive in a hard environment on a "reality" show. Now you need to toss a naked man and woman into the mix. For reasons. (aka Ratings.)

Re:The Discovery channel? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 months ago | (#47678125)

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.

Thank the threat of the ill-thought-out "a la carte" plans where instead of channels having to fight for subscribers as a group, they have to fight for subscribers individually.

This results in a race to the bottom lowest common denominator play where the goal is to get as many eyeballs as possible.

So what was once a cheap WWII theme channel now has to fight for eyeballs and subscribers on its own so the quality goes down in an attempt to attract the widest possible audience.

The other trick is that popular shows get moved to other channels so subscribers have to get them all.

All a la carte has done is moved the terribleness of network TV to cable since they all have to fight for the same attention.

Oh, and what sells is drama. Fake drama works, which is why all the "good" shows have to incorporate some form of interpersonal conflict.

Just another day in the law of unintended consequences. And in the meantime, speciality cable channels wither and die because they can no longer afford to produce high quality niche content on fewer subscribers. So all channels need to generalize.

Re:The Discovery channel? (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 2 months ago | (#47678333)

The reality TV executives showed up and everyone went "wow look at how cheap that content is". Although they failed to really grasp that whole cheap thing in the proper context.

TV is 99% junk (repeats, realityTV, etc) now because it was more profitable. All the specialty channels are now just repeating junk rather than trying to be channels serving that actual niche. Hell the weather channel didn't show weather, SciFi shows wrestling, etc. Those channels long ago lost their real audiences.

Re:The Discovery channel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47674923)

I thought history was exclusively garbage reality shows now.

Re:The Discovery channel? (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 3 months ago | (#47674947)

No that's TLC [tlc.com] .

Re:The Discovery channel? (5, Insightful)

penguinoid (724646) | about 3 months ago | (#47674945)

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

Re:The Discovery channel? (2)

TheLink (130905) | about 3 months ago | (#47675847)

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?... [youtube.com]
2007: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

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

Re:The Discovery channel? (1)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | about 2 months ago | (#47676087)

The narration in the 2007 version sounds like Tosh.0 or something equally as vapid and shit.

Re:The Discovery channel? (1)

StikyPad (445176) | about 2 months ago | (#47676669)

A sociopathic boss would look for the best way to alienate his viewers and murder his employees. You're probably thinking of psychopaths.

Re:The Discovery channel? (1)

jythie (914043) | about 2 months ago | (#47677167)

One of the problems is that as a network gets moderately successful catering to a niche, new management comes in and sees niche markets as a resume stain and thus try to go after the same 'mainstream' demographics as all the other networks. Niches are reasonably profitable, but they will not get you laid at parties. So I would say it is not even about money, it is about status and transient executives wanting a shot at being known for taking a niche channel and making it a respectable success at great risk to the company.

Re:The Discovery channel? (4, Insightful)

Brainguy (12519) | about 2 months ago | (#47675957)

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."

H2 (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47676187)

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

It did change the name of History Channel International to H2; I have to give them that.

Re:The Discovery channel? (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 months ago | (#47676541)

You forgot to mention:

News outlets - full of fiction and unscientific crap

Re:The Discovery channel? (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 months ago | (#47677449)

If it wasn't for Mythbusters, there wouldn't be anything worth watching on Discovery Channel. It's a shame since, at one point, it was one of the bright spots in the cable lineup. Back in the day when "The Sci-Fi Channel" - not "SyFy" - meant good science fiction shows and The History Channel actually dealt with real historical events.

Re:The Discovery channel? (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 2 months ago | (#47682077)

If it wasn't for Mythbusters, there wouldn't be anything worth watching on Discovery Channel. It's a shame since, at one point, it was one of the bright spots in the cable lineup. Back in the day when "The Sci-Fi Channel" - not "SyFy" - meant good science fiction shows and The History Channel actually dealt with real historical events.

My kid used to call the History channel "The Hitler Channel", because of all the WW2 documentaries like "World at War" and the "Wings" airplane show. Now those were some good if sometimes disturbing Television shows.

Wow! (5, Funny)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#47674775)

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

Shaks have violated the most important rule... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47674799)

...for coexisting with humanity: "Don't be delicious".

In all seriousness, can't we, just for once, leave another species the fuck alone?! Yeah, they're tasty as all get out, but they won't make your dick bigger, your hair grow back, or cure cancer/ebola/aids.

Here's a hint: stay away from the Mako's, they're the assholes of the shark world. Otherwise, just appreciate that sharks were here millions of hears before us, and let them be.

Re:Shaks have violated the most important rule... (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 3 months ago | (#47674893)

>Here's a hint: stay away from the Mako's, they're the assholes of the shark world. Otherwise, just appreciate that sharks were here millions of hears before us, and let them be.

Not if they screw up my internetz

Shock Collar not West Side enough (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 3 months ago | (#47674801)

"You could just whoop one of those Sharks ass in front of the others."

-Random Jet

Most documentaries suck (5, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | about 3 months ago | (#47674813)

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.

Re:Most documentaries suck (1)

visualight (468005) | about 3 months ago | (#47674995)

On Amazon Prime the 'Documentary' category is all brainless reality shows, much worse than Netflix for finding a good one.

Re:Most documentaries suck (2)

rewindustry (3401253) | about 3 months ago | (#47675649)

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.

Re:Most documentaries suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47686111)

Lots of the more intelligent Americans watch the BBC news and documentaries, because there is often less bullshit than the corresponding US productions, or at least these provide a different perspective.

This doesn't mean there is no bullshit, of course. All human cultures have prejudices and bias, and sometimes people let their prejudices overcome their sense of professionalism.

For example, take "Around The World In 80 Treasures". For the most part, it was nice to see lots of places I'll probably never see in person, and there was some good information presented. On the other hand, the section on the USA was incredibly vapid and bone-headed, showing much of the same arrogance, ignorance and prejudice I see coming from many (but not all) of the European posters on Slashdot. Highly non-professional, but that is also atypical of the BBC.

On the other hand, I really liked and can find no major fault with Griff Rhys Jones in "Mountain - Exploring Britain's High Places", although it is occasionally challenging to make out what is being said in some of the British accents ...

Re:Most documentaries suck (2)

antdude (79039) | about 3 months ago | (#47675757)

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

Re:Most documentaries suck (1)

StikyPad (445176) | about 2 months ago | (#47676707)

NOVA is okay, but they don't seem to produce new episodes frequently, or even on any sort of regular schedule. And since the topics run the gamut from history to current events, and biology to technology, it's hit or miss whether any one particular episode will be of interest to the viewer. With some exceptions, it's usually one episode per topic, so there's limited information presented on any one subject. According to Wikipedia, many of the episodes are rebranded as BBC Horizons (or vice versa), so flipping the channel won't necessarily help there.

Re:Most documentaries suck (5, Informative)

evilviper (135110) | about 3 months ago | (#47675771)

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.

America's Test Kitchen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47678673)

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.

America's Test Kitchen is the last great cooking show after Alton Brown hung up his apron.

Everything else is "reality" competition or straight-out food pr0n.

Re:Most documentaries suck (1)

Shatrat (855151) | about 2 months ago | (#47676927)

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

Maybe what it tells you is that the world isn't as simple as your biases lead you to believe? Hitler loved dogs, Ford hated jews. People are capable of good things and bad things.

Re:Most documentaries suck (1)

netsavior (627338) | about 2 months ago | (#47677345)

you have to follow director/producers like you do with Hollywood movies. You can be reasonably sure a movie that contains "Spielberg" in the credits will be watchable... Watch Anything by Ken Burns [imdb.com] and you won't be sorry. Almost all are available on Amazon Prime Instant video too.

Re:Most documentaries suck (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 2 months ago | (#47682797)

I'm "sorry" about EVERYTHING I've ever watched by Ken Burns.

Paced slow as hell, with fleetingly little information that you could assimilate in a fraction the time, with a heavy focus on personal letters and vignettes, to the exclusion of all else.

Re:Most documentaries suck (1)

LessThanObvious (3671949) | about 2 months ago | (#47682545)

There is little in media that has integrity. The Discovery Channel used to seem like educational programing. It is now as mentioned just alien, monster shark, swamp logger, pawn shop, gas monkey reality TV BS. Watch Gasland and then FrackNation (documentaries). Everything is presented in ways that the average person cannot tell journalism from opinion and science fact from sensational conjecture.

"stands by the viewing figures" is telling... (4, Insightful)

trims (10010) | about 3 months ago | (#47674821)

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.

Re:"stands by the viewing figures" is telling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47674997)

I'd sue Discovery for misrepresentation and libel.

Scientists, like most normal working people, tend not to have the time or money to hire a lawyer to do that.

I hate shark week... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47674823)

Always have. But what put me over the edge were the ads from a year or two ago. Some stupid jerk-off shouting "SHARKWEEK" at the end of it.

I couldn't avoid it or mute it fast enough (TV on in the background while I'm doing something else). Didn't matter what channel I was watching, since every channel promotes shit on every other channel.

from Steve Irwin to Osa Johnson (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 3 months ago | (#47674873)

there's always a bigger fish.

People like dumb shit (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47674911)

With regards to Discovery, I too have noticed a degrading of quality from them over the years. To be honest the only real show I ever watched from them in recent times was MythBusters, but I don't even watch that anymore because of how far it's fallen. Very little science to speak of, an apparent focus more on explosions and poor attempts at (scripted) humor than actually investigating a myth to its fullest, not to mention of course the lack of any real proper myths these days that aren't from movies or TV shows or anything other than pop culture, but I suppose there's a limit to how many myths there actually are and can be tested, so I'll not be too hard on them for that.

Oh and of course, all the irritating cross-promotional shit that appears on MythBusters connecting them to other Discovery shows that I have no interest in, but the powers that be still feel the need to plaster the screen with ads for at every occasion (including of course random Twitter messages that serve no purpose but to say "hey look how good our show is" even though you're WATCHING the fucking thing at the same time).

I've heard MythBusters has had its budget steadily decreased despite the show becoming more and more popular, so with this current focus MythBusters has on things, not to mention Shark Week and the lack of actual truth and rather a push for misrepresentation in the name of entertainment... if taking their shows down this party is hugely successful for Discovery, then people have themselves to blame.

It appears that one has to go towards an anti-intellectual stance if one wants to make profitable entertainment. I'm not against dumb entertainment at times, but fuck, there's barely anything left on commercial TV that isn't pandering to base standards and give a shit about integrity anymore.

Re:People like dumb shit (1)

dnavid (2842431) | about 3 months ago | (#47674951)

if taking their shows down this party is hugely successful for Discovery, then people have themselves to blame.

We don't judge the morality of serial killers by how successful they are.

Re:People like dumb shit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47675559)

I don't see how that's a valid comparison (or maybe I'm too thick to see it).

Discovery makes the quality of their shows steadily drop further and further because they can - because they still make popular shows that makes the moneys because they still appeal to people despite the fact they used to be better. In fact, it's quite likely that the more stupid the shows become, the more popular they become since it increases the audience (and presumably the people who leave because the show is no longer of the quality they desire are outnumbered by new viewers who don't care/don't know any better).

Re:People like dumb shit (1)

Megol (3135005) | about 2 months ago | (#47676551)

Sure we do, just look at a history book. Who are listed? How many of those directly or indirectly killed a lot of people?

Re:People like dumb shit (1)

dnavid (2842431) | about 2 months ago | (#47681385)

Sure we do, just look at a history book. Who are listed? How many of those directly or indirectly killed a lot of people?

None of my history books rank serial killers by their success rate. Perhaps you can recommend one.

People have no choice except dumb shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47675351)

Your logic would be fine if TV media was actually a free market. In fact when many of these channels came out they were in competing spaces, and provided a variety of material. All TV News today is the same shit, reporting stories based on information from the same source. All non-News has the same owners, doing the same shit the same way with the same sources.

When "The Discovery Channel" became a piece of shit we went to "TLC" and so did most other people I know ( In can't speak for everyone obviously, but ratings show similar trending). When TLC went to shit we went to History, and now that is shit too. Same fucking owner doing the same thing over and over.

Oh I know, it's really easy for you or I to get a license to broadcast right? Pretty cheap for a startup to get broadcast space and compete too right? No, it's a licensing nightmare which is allegedly controlled by the FCC who is lobbied by those same companies that turned things to shit that block new entrants.

You are the same type of person that blames people for voting for Obama over Romney because your shit sandwich was better than theirs right? Yeah, I thought as much. Troll.

Obligatory joke (5, Funny)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 3 months ago | (#47674915)

Kevlar does not protect from wireshark! [wikipedia.org]

Re:Obligatory joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47676405)

Kevlar does not protect from wireshark! [wikipedia.org]

No one can read that in your made-up language! Merde!

Kevlar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47674981)

Kevlar is what causes sharknadoes to happen.

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47675021)

"...exploits nature and local history for shark value."

Mixed summary? (1)

Weirsbaski (585954) | about 3 months ago | (#47675275)

So, are we supposed to discuss the coolness of using Kevlar to combat shark attacks, or the outrage of the Discovery network's sensationalist programming?

Re:Mixed summary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47675401)

Why not both! Like Discovery channel. They tell you half-truths with a whole load of sensationalistic BS.

There aren't any good channels on TV anyway. They all remind of a Lexx episode - Lafftrak . It's all about the ratings!

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

you know what this means.... (2)

shop S Mart (755311) | about 3 months ago | (#47675363)

looks like shark week has jumped the shark

Great idea! (1)

mordejai (702496) | about 3 months ago | (#47675433)

Every month, when "Shark Week" arrives, I'll start wearing kevlar. My connection might be wireless, but my head isn't.

Pay attention? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47675495)

How many people pay attention to or even care about "shark week"? Who gets to decide what week is what?

  "discussing how the increasing sensationalist special event misrepresents science and exploits nature and local history for shock value"

That is what every news channel and "educational" channel are. You can't watch anything and believe everything they said. The show will always spin the story to get as much viewership as possible, being true no longer matters since the majority will take it as truth anyway.

Nielsen (2)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47676203)

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 [orain.org] . In particular, Shark Week [wikipedia.org] 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 [theledger.com] .

Simple solution... (1)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | about 3 months ago | (#47675683)

Stop using insulation that tastes like chicken. Or the shark equivalent of chicken...

There is a much better solution (1)

maroberts (15852) | about 3 months ago | (#47675753)

Instead of polluting the oceans with these huge cables, we should attach fricken lasers to sharks.

At this point you might think I am going to do another tired re run of the Dr Evil comment, but if you had the imagination that he did you would realise that by also fitting optical detectors on sharks you could have a point to point internet mesh across all sharks in the ocean. SharkNet would not have a single point of failure as like the internet is supposed to do it could find another route in the event of the loss of any shark node.

I humbly submit that Dr Evil was a visionary who was simply ahead of his time and should be canonised into the pantheon of saints alongside Saint Steve of Jobs

Discovery sucks ass (1)

Bender Unit 22 (216955) | about 2 months ago | (#47676101)

Ever since 2007 where they announced that hey decided to focus on "the people behind the technology, than the technology", they have been working hard to become nothing more than yet another "reality" show channel.
When I dropped cable tv 2 years ago, their transformation seemed to be complete and they had nothng but camera whores in their shows.

66% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47676395)

66% of their poll-takers believe that mermaids are real. I have some Jesus-riding-a-dinosaur pictuires I want to sell these people.

Sensationalsim (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47676543)

Next think you know someone will be claiming an Earth-ending attack of the atmosphere.

Will it be called Climate Week?

TLC to Discovery (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about 2 months ago | (#47676555)

When the The Learning Channel was purchased by Discovery that was the end. Series such as Connections were no more while almost anti-scientific crap became the norm. It seems to be about the same timeline as The History Channel moving from History to Aliens.

I'm surprised they aren't using rare earth metals (1)

NichardRixon (869899) | about 2 months ago | (#47676609)

It's been found that rare earth metals like neodymium are highly effective as shark deterrents. No other fish are effected except skates, and the reaction of sharks to the metal is dramatic and instantaneous. The effect has something to do with a unique quality of shark skin, which when brought into the vicinity of neodymium produces an electric charge that sharks don't like at all.

For more information see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

The only liability to this approach is that the metals are gradually depleted and must be replaced, but depending upon how much it's costing to maintain the fiber without it, it may be well worth it.

NR

Re:I'm surprised they aren't using rare earth meta (1)

koan (80826) | about 2 months ago | (#47676825)

If fiber some how is capable of "leaking electrical" emissions what would a bunch of rare earth magnets do?

Re:I'm surprised they aren't using rare earth meta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47678143)

Keep the sharks away. Originally it was believed that rare earth magnets were necessary to produce the effect, but later it was discovered that it depended only upon the presence of the rare earth metal, which must be electro-positive. The Wikipedia article linked from my previous post gives a good explanation of the mechanism. It has nothing to do, of course, with the fiber optics. They're using fishing hooks plated with neodymium to help prevent accidental catching of sharks by fishing boats.

NR

Mermaids... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47676723)

" (not to mention the mermaid special, which was sadly missing a singing crab.)"
Ah, Discovery! Putting honest singing crabs out of work...!

What am I missing here (1)

koan (80826) | about 2 months ago | (#47676817)

emission of electrical currents from the fiber piping

How do you get electrical emissions from fiber optic cabling?

Re:What am I missing here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47680067)

Electrical lines are part of the undersea cables. They power the optical repeaters that are placed every 1-2 km.

Distortion is a Real Problem (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 2 months ago | (#47677045)

I used to think of the Discovery Channel as being good - I've bought a lot of their DVDs for our kids over the years. But the distortion is a real problem.

These are presented as factual, scientific documentaries but they're filled with sensational half-truths and outright lies. I have had seven different documentary companies approach me about documenting our family farm in made for TV specials or even a 13 week series. But because of the distortions I've read about (e.g., Mermaid incident and others) I don't trust them to do it right so the answer has always been no.

Besides, I have farming, homeschooling and family time to attend to. I don't even have or watch TV.

Next sensationalist show: "The Linux Kernel" (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 2 months ago | (#47677313)

Next on Discovery, discover how this once-obscure hobbyist "computer program" now runs key parts of the Internet and even the core of that computer-in-your-pocket that you call a telephone. See the dangers as the Discovery Channel uncovers 10 year old bugs in "embedded systems" are ticking time bombs that could destroy the Internet as we know it if they go off. ....

shark week (1)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | about 2 months ago | (#47678969)

Not to be confused with "Shart Week" that was recently on some cable televsion network...I forgot which.

Re:shark week (1)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | about 2 months ago | (#47679003)

Comedy Central, I remember now.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?