On Wed, May 2, 2007 08:16, Tony Whitmore wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 10:57:36PM +0100, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
>> On Tue, May 1, 2007 at 21:56:29 +0100 (+0100), Vic wrote:
>> > I've just watched a cracking bit of telly. Some science without too
>> much
>> > voodoo.
>>
>> Heh, was just complaining about the same program :-)
>>
>> Just about zero info on the immensely cool LHC, no mention of the
>> recent problems, the technology, the background. Lots of inaccuracy -
>> they implied that CERN was just built for the LHC - the tunnel was
>> used by the (courtesy wikipedia) LEP from 1989 to 2000. Huge amounts
>> of pointless waffle, irrelevant "random picture of the sky for a
>> minute to fill in some time".
>
> Sounds like I was right to stop bothering with Horizon as well as Panorama
> then. The question remains where the really good quality TV investigative
> and
> reportage journalism is these days. Dispatches?
Sigh. My girlfriend insisted on recording this one because
it was a hard science topic and might actually be interesting.
I predicted it would have 'snazzy irrelevent special effects'
and not much content. Sounds like I was right.
The last one we saw was the stupid "Dinosaurs survived" one,
which we gave up 10 minutes into.
I'm almost through watching Cosmos (got the DVD set from
the States - it's Region 0 though, so works on anything). It's
actually pretty good, despite being over 20 years old (it has
some '10 years later' updates added at the end of most episodes).
Well narrated, and actually contains content.
Apart from that, I'm looking at the 'Science books of the year'
lists for actual interesting content.
--
Be seeing you, Web: www.glendale.org.uk
Sam. GTalk: sam@???
