Finding Better Tech Broadcasts? 205
BearGrylls writes "As a young lad and aspiring technologist I have found shows like Revision3's 'The Broken' and 'Systm' to be entertaining, informative, and, most importantly, thorough. As time has gone on revision3 has kept some of the tech-related shows, but dumbed them down to appeal to a larger audience. This annoyed me, but I've continued to be a loyal viewer of their tech shows anyway. However, I suspect this trend to continue and my disappointment to grow. Where can I find tech shows that dive deep into projects and discussions instead of simply skimming the surface?"
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
I've never had a first post before.
I haven't found any TV shows I like about Tech in a long time, but I like Make magazine.
Re: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Moderately offtopic - But which are the best tech magazines which one can subscribe to?
I checked out Make after you mentioned it and it seems to be a very good one. One I can think of myself is IEEE Spectrum . Are there others?
Re: (Score:2)
I asked about trade magazines [blogspot.com] and got a few responses, and I'm always looking for more reading material, so I'm interested in hearing responses too.
And for the record, I like Lightwave, Dr Dobbs, Network World, Storage Magazine, and I'll be writing soon for Simple Talk Exchange, so you should subscribe to that, too ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This brings me to a good point. If you want deep you need to find something on JUST the one topic. SN is user level security. T
Educational TV (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Educational TV (Score:5, Interesting)
There's more to it than that. The OP's opinion: "dumbed them down to appeal to a larger audience" describes cable television (or any mass media) perfectly. As time goes on, the requirement for more-and-more viewers, requires lowering the intelligence to where even Jimmy-Joe Bob can understand.
I remember when TLC was called the Learning Channel and actually had intelligent programming. Now it's more akin to the "Tender Loving Care" channel about babies, weddings, and other stuff that doesn't require thinking. Discover Channel has also been dumbed down. Ditto Animal Planet. Ditto A&E.
The History Channel is the only basic cable channel that still teaches something useful. The rest don't require anything more than 5th grade education.
Re:Educational TV (Score:5, Funny)
The History Channel is the only basic cable channel that still teaches something useful.
The History Channel... is that the one with all the shows about bible codes and UFOs?
Re:Educational TV (Score:4, Funny)
The History Channel is the only basic cable channel that still teaches something useful.
The History Channel... is that the one with all the shows about bible codes and UFOs?
They also have programming about Nazis.
Re:Educational TV (Score:5, Funny)
They also have programming about Nazis.
That was one heck of a fast Godwin.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>They also have programming about Nazis.
Yeah but they've toned-down those shows. The Hitler Channel..... er, I mean the History Channel is now showing more programs about the Romans, the Barbarians, or the Middle Ages. Their documentary about the 300 Spartans was more-entertaining (and informative) than the actual movie.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been referring to it as "The Hitlery Channel" for years...
(Always remember: People are Lazy. Thinking is work.)
Re:Educational TV (Score:5, Insightful)
Sci-Fi Channel - yet another channel that was dumbed down. I remember when they had "talk shows" that visited conventions to meet the fans, discussed new technologies that were emerging, and interviewed authors about their latest books. Now the channel fills its primetime slots with "Scared Stupid", "Dishonest Seances", and other hokey nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you on all of the Ghost Hunters and the other crap shows.
Re: (Score:2)
And why is a comedy on the Science (and fantasy)-Fiction Channel? It doesn't belong there. It fits under neither genre.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funnily enough, History Channel is always at the top of my list of channels that went way downhill. They do still have the veneer of informative programming, but will have things like straight-faced interviews with one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail. They love doing segments on wacky crap nobody takes seriously, and paint their quack subjects like some underdog determined to shine the light of truth.
They should call it the conspiracy channel.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They should call it the conspiracy channel.
If a new network sprung up with the same budget as the History channel and had that name, I'm afraid to think of how many people would take it seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
History Channel is a lot better than it used to be. People used to call it "the Hitler Channel" because it was constantly replaying old WW2 film. It became BORING.
Fortunately over the last five years the channel has expanded its programming to Ancient Civilizations and Middle Ages. It's one of the few channels that has actually improved its coverage of its central topic.
Re: (Score:2)
right, like having ufologists, ghost hunters/paranormal investigators, cryptozoologists, and other assorted loonies on as "experts." no wonder America is getting dumber by the minute...
compare the History Channel to real educational TV networks like the National Geographic Channel and the BBC, and you'll see what a complete joke History/Discovery channel are. they produce intentionally sensationalized programs on topics like Big Foot or the Chupacabra, which only have "believers" speaking on the show about
Re: (Score:2)
I like "Modern Marvels".
Re: (Score:2)
Also "300 Spartans" was a good documentary. Ditto "Lost Civilizations". And "Underground Cities" which covers the past, mostly the middle ages. "The Barbarians" was a 10-part documentary about the fall of Rome and eventual formation of modern Europe. From time-to-time they also show great movies or miniseries like "Holocaust".
There's a lot more good stuff on History Channel than bad.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't "bare" [sic] to watch History Channel programs anymore?
It sounds like you need to subscribe to the English Language channel.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I refer to it as "The Ladies Channel".
Re: (Score:2)
Even PBS is garbage these days. Have you seen Wired Science? Or Nova: ScienceNOW? It's pretty bad when the best science show on PBS are 5-10 year old reruns of Scientific American Frontiers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NOVA ScienceNOW is alright. they're aimed at younger audiences to stimulate interest in the sciences in kids. i think that's a worthwhile goal. but i agree that PBS is pretty bad. i once even saw a KPBS documentary program denouncing the Separation of Church and State as "unconstitutional."
however, the BBC, CBC, and the National Geographic Channel still provide decent quality programming. though i'm a little afraid that NGC is becoming more like the Discovery/History Channel. but so far they haven't tried t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Screensavers going down was a fucking tragedy. I remember when they first broadcast in Canada, I saw the very first episode they aired here and thought "Finally! A TV show for ME!"
You knew things were turning to shit when they cut the shows length to 60 minutes (because 90 minute shows don't work was the argument) and started having celebrity interviews. Writing was clearly on the wall from then on.
I still miss TSS. These days the only tech show I watch regularly is Tekzilla, which I like, but I find it end
Re: (Score:2)
What's funny is if I recall, half the reason Rose and friends started Revision 3 was because stuff like Tech TV got dumbed down and killed off.
How soon the rebels become the establishment.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Giving people what they want, which is "easy" to understand programming. I guess if you want intelligent shows you have to watch that other channel government socialism sponsors. Um, darn, I forget what it's called.
It shows lots of things that less than 1/4% of America tunes-in to watch (even fewer than the number watching CW). Let me think. Oh yeah, PBS.
Re: (Score:2)
PBS actually has some decent programs, like NOVA Now (and other NOVA shows). but the BBC is a much better example of public broadcasting done right. they produce, arguably, the best documentary and news programs of any network.
personally, i lost all respect for American public broadcasting when KPBS (they're the San Diego member station of PBS run by UCSD) aired a program arguing that Separation of Church and State is wrong, and that the establishment clause was actually trying to give theists free reign to
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get why you capitalize acronyms and proper nouns, but leave capitals off the beginning of sentences. Those are the most important capitals for reading.
Re: (Score:2)
the PBS is still partially tax-funded despite their corporate sponsors and constant donation-drives.
and luckily many Brits show a more progressive attitude than you do, otherwise we wouldn't have amazing programs like BBC's awe-inspiring Planet Earth series, James Burke's wittily narrated & innovative Connections series, all of the pioneering wildlife documentaries presented by broadcasting legends like David Attenborough, and the sharp unapologetic social & political commentary by intellectual fire
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as someone who has done both. Paid the license fee in the UK, and experienced the wonder of "free" TV here, I'd take the license free and the BBC ANY DAY OF THE WEEK over what passes for free here.
Re: (Score:2)
Which way do you want it? Paid for by advertising, or paid for by you? If it's paid for by advertising, then not only will they go for the biggest possible audience, they will try to attract an audience that works for their advertisers. That is, they will narrowly pitch each show to an advertising segment (say, explosions for the 18-35yo male) instead of to an interest segment.
Hopefully the economic and regulatory climate will make it possible for us to buy well-produced television content or at least bu
Re: (Score:2)
Market economy? Yes, indeed. Now that millions of folks like me use tech like TiVo to skip the ads, ad revenues are dropping, they need to reach wider (and less tech savvy) audiences to compensate, and presto: we have what they warned we would have. So we move on to more intelligent programming, meaning "what are the smart podcasts on the Internet?", TV viewership drops, Internet use booms, ad revenues on the Internet boom, Google booms, we all get ad blockers for our browsers and complain that our favorite
Re: (Score:2)
I presume you mean Connections 2, since the original aired on PBS.
(IMHO, Connections 2 was MUCH more disjointed and less well thought out than the original Connections, and Connections 3 even more so.. Even so, I missed some episodes and intend on renting it on DVD some day.)
Re: (Score:2)
when have these shows ever been for the bright? I remember watching one or two of these shows a few years back and it seemed like skriptkiddie 101 for stoner wiggers.
Re: (Score:2)
TV broadcasts are for dump/passive people. Smart, tech-savvy users search pro-actively on Internet the informations they need or want. The bandwidth per people of TV broadcast is so low that they can not afford to make shows solely for specialists that would make them compete with Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not trollish... smart people tend to read. It's a cycle... there's not much "smart" TV, so people pick up a magazine or book or browse the internet - which reduces the potential viewership for "smart" TV. Rinse, repeat.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, definitely not a troll. Five years ago I couldn't have imagined not having cable TV. Since then I've spent 3 of the last five years TV-less. I don't miss it at all. No asinine commercials. Reality shows. Bullshit news reporting. Reruns... The money is being spent elsewhere and really, for what I paid I can pick up a couple of DVD's, and spend more time watching them then I spent watching TV when I had it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I do think it's somewhat trollish. I have avoided "asinine commercials" for a very long time with VCRs and now with Tivos. I like some reality shows(*). Some are dumb, some are entertaining. I avoid reruns the same way I avoid commercials. I also like various dramas, a few sitcoms, and various documentaries. (Slashdot readers should watch "The Big Bang Theory". Though I laugh a lot at it, I think the cliched main storyline is unfortunate.. It is still very funny.)
(*) I can't find a reference to
Re: (Score:2)
which is why we shouldn't be giving the largely consolidated TV & radio networks control of so much of the radio spectrum. if we used those spectrum blocks to roll out municipal WiFi/WiMax, we could have a nationwide wireless broadband infrastructure in place by 2012 (just in time for the world to end =P).
but seriously, why dedicate so much bandwidth potential to closed proprietary communications networks controlled by a handful of media corporations. the internet is a generalized open communication net
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought Slashdot was changing then too, but it wasn't. It turns out that while I wasn't paying attention, I'd become more experienced in the ways of s
Re: (Score:2)
Go, now! Leave your mod points, they are of no use to you any more. From now on your moderations will be made in blood. The blood of inferior nerds.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then IMO you have a responsibility to CORRECT those wrong assertions. Not all of them, but at least one or two, or else nobody else is going to learn.
Just a thought.
Revision 3 has new, better shows! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Great for advanced users?
I only watched one episode, but it consisted of them talking about "pwning n00bs", and interviewing someone who was supposedly "seriously 31337" about some shareware app of his, before talking about counter strike for a few minutes. They also mentioned some game on Steam, which they commented on by saying - and this is a direct quote - "of course, everybody uses it already".
I'm not saying it was bad - I would have loved this show when i was 13-15. But... Seriously?
On TV? No. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:On TV? No. (Score:5, Informative)
Oddly, I thought your point was clearer the first time!
As it happens I do quite enjoy The Gadget Show (UK) - although it doesn't always go into as much detail as I would like, and suffers from an occasional bout of "oooh... shiney!".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There was a great series shown in the UK for a while, called "Planet Mechanics". They built, from scratch or any simple materials they could lay their hands on, a high pressure water turbine for off grid electricity, a working wind turbine generator, a compressed air powered moped, a farm slurry digester to make methane for fuel, all kinds of stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
The gadget show is a disgrace, produced for the pretender geeks. People who don't really know about technology, but like to pretend they do. They know a little bit more than the average joe, but act like they understand it all. They show would be amusing if the presenters weren't so inept.
Re: (Score:2)
Great show. I think the main problem with it is that they need to make it a 'fun' show and fit it all into the 1 hour slot.
I suspect one of the british release groups has capped the new series - worth a look.
No content in Tech TV (Score:2, Informative)
GDGT.com (Score:5, Informative)
I listen to TWIT [thisweekintech.com] (This Week In Tech) regularly, mainly for Leo Laporte and any guest who isn't Dvorak. I don't find Leo to be particularly techy, but he's quite entertaining and controls the flow of the show well.
They mention Rev3 alot and also a new site called GDGT [gdgt.com] (GaDGeT) which is supposedly good - I must admit I haven't found time to check it out yet.
Okay no excuses, subsribing to an RSS feed is dead simple, so I'm going go ahead and subscribe to GDGT and check it out. - Oh and IO9 [io9.com] while I'm at it.
Security Now, MacBreak Tech, Security Bites, etc. (Score:2)
There are several TWiT podcasts, and some of them only partially meet the criteria of the person who submitted the question. Let's review the criteria: "entertaining, informative, and, most importantly, thorough," not dumbed down, "dive deep into projects and discussions instead of simply skimming the surface."
The two TWiT podcasts that meet all the criteria that come immediately to mind are Security Now [twit.tv] and the (unfortunately now defunct) MacBreak Tech [macbreaktech.com]. Security Now is very technical and educational, and
Google's Tech Talks (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I stopped watching Google Tech Talks after they moved form Google Video to YouTube. Back on GV, I could download a fairly high quality AVI that I could easily play on my TV. Now that they're on YouTube, downloading isn't quite as easy and the video quality is nowhere near as good.
Hak5 (Score:2)
So far I've found Hak5 interesting (also from Revision3). It's definitely unpolished (I find it charming), but it does introduce you to some interesting topics I wouldn't normally have noted. Of course, nothing's going to go into 100% detail, but at least it's a starting point.
Hackermedia (Score:4, Informative)
TWiTNetwork (Score:4, Informative)
Leo Laporte's TWiT (named after the flagship show "This Week in Tech") network at twit.tv. It includes downloadable audio casts and streaming video. I listen to it on my daily commute. Two good ones are FLOSS Weekly with Randall Schwartz and Security Now with Steve Gibson. I was just listening to FLOSS weekly today -- they had a KDE developer on discussing the latest developments.
Open university. (Score:2)
The open university do a few good ones here in the uk (like the Atom series) and the history of maths
shown on the bbc.
They don't go into 'serious' depth and the history of maths didn't actually cover much of the maths details but it did cover the the theroies and the history quite well.
You may be able to find them on a torrent site. (and if your really lucky you may be able to find some of those late night open university broadcasts).
There not really strictly tech but they do cover the science tech is based
Expand your horizons (Score:3, Informative)
Citizen Engineer [citizenengineer.com] only has one episode out so far, and looks like it's going to be mostly hardhacking, but it's definitely not dumbed-down.
On the other hand, if you're looking for a serious discussion on the future of tech with a stronger grip on reality than Popular Science, try MIT's LabCast [mit.edu] videos, with footage of working prototypes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not DIY? (Score:4, Informative)
In the spirit of open source, if something is making you itch, you have the opportunity to scratch it.
I used to host a tech-oriented radio show on a local community radio station. I also syndicated the show using radio4all.net.
Television is a little harder to do, but thanks to sites like YouTube, it is possible to do on the cheap, because Google will absorb the bandwidth costs if your show is a success (and reap the ad revenue).
You can also do what Kevin Rose did in the early days of the Broken: Encourage your show to be distributed far and wide by whatever means are available.
Granted, none of these are likely to produce a result with as much production value as Revision3 shows (there's nothing like geeking out in HD), but it can get you started.
. . . if you want to go that route. If not, that's okay, too
NPR Science Friday (Score:5, Informative)
Forget your television. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want to learn about something complex and nuanced, then your television is the wrong place to look. It has been argued by sociologists like Neil Postman in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death, and even by admen themselves, like Jerry Mander in his Four Arguments for The Elimination of Television, that the medium of television is a poor conduit for complex ideas.
Even the networks which have not arguably been "dumbed down," like the History Channel mentioned here, are a pretty poor provider of accurat
Not just TV shows... (Score:2)
Everything.
Did you ever read the late, lamented Dr. Dobbs Journal?
I'll Recommend Some Podcasts (Score:2)
For tech and science news and commentary, I listen to (and in one case, watch) these tech-oriented podcasts, available via iTunes...
In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg
Make Podcast (video)
The Naked Scientists (Good, intelligent reporting and discussion. The hosts each have professional academic specialties and speak from their respective areas of expertise. Nice children's segments in this show.)
NOVA Science Now
Krulwich on Science (A classic British attempt to make science as deep and boring as possible. Luv it!)
N
Re:I'll Recommend Some Podcasts - Correction (Score:2)
Oops! I have to correct my previous post.
The comment about "A classic British attempt to make science as deep and boring as possible. Luv it!" was actually supposed to go after "Melvyn Bragg."
Krulwich on Science is another NPR broadcast. Not very British at all.
UCTV (Score:2)
I get UCTV on my Dish Network satellite and its tech programming is excellent. Plenty to fill a DVR. Schedule here [www.uctv.tv].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I have seen the same (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
+V RIDICVLVS
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. They should be using kilometres instead of stadia.
Or Libraries of Congress?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with Libraries of Congress is that it's not a static measurement. You've got to have Libraries of Congress adjusted for inflation
Re:I have seen the same (Score:5, Insightful)
What I think is happening is that news and factual reporting is a deeper fracture between a "TV" and an "internet" audience.
The internet now provides news in incredible depth. If you read bloggers who really know their subject, you'll get far more depth than TV ever gave you, and often more depth than most newspapers. You ever heard a TV economics reporter explaining the Laffer Curve or Basquiat's Broken Window Fallacy? You just never get that stuff. When the political parties were arguing about post office closures, not one journalism did the digging that showed that it was basically an issue of EU subsidies (that the government couldn't fund Post Offices).
On the other hand, TV news is incredibly dumb now. A story like Kerry Katona being made bankrupt never made the news when I was a kid. It was almost entirely hard news.
If people want to know why there's a real lack of hard science on TV, it's for this reason. Because the science audience is gone. They're watching video clips on YouTube or reading papers about science. Science coverage on TV is more "technology" now (which actually just means gadget reporting).
Re: (Score:2)
Mod this up as 'insightful'. You are SO right, and this probably explains why I spend ten times more time on Slashdot than watching the telly. Thank God/Allah/Flying Spaghetti Monster for the internet!
Re: (Score:2)
If you read bloggers who really know their subject,
So then the question is, how do you know which bloggers really do know their subjects? Anyone with a computer and an internet connection can start a blog. Is there any type of peer-reviewed rating system for blogs to help find those knowledgeable sorts?
Re: (Score:2)
So then the question is, how do you know which bloggers really do know their subjects?
You have to use your noggin'. Unfortunate for people without one, but there you go...
Generally, if you find yourself reading a particular opinion/fact on only one type of site - well, it's probably horse shit. For instance, if you read an article about how 9/11 was an inside job, but can only find corroborating information on conspiracy sites... it's horse shit.
If you disagree with that last statement, then you fail teh internets.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if there is a subject in which I am not familiar, but want to learn, then I have to first locate and review multiple blogs on the subject and then determine which is probably accurate by the number of others that agree or disagree?
I suppose it might be better to first read about a subject in a peer reviewed publication so I have the background, then find the bloggers that semi match the publications. Of course that could lead to me dismissing someone with an opposing view point that might have a valid
Re: (Score:2)
The first place I go when looking for a new subject is Wikipedia. It usually gives you some background - just hold your nose if it is an even remotely controversial subject. Reading the "wrong viewpoint" won't hurt you :)
The next thing that I'll typically do is look down at the references in the Wikipedia article and use those for my next step. But at some point you have to step back and do your own research as a sanity check.
Again, it depends on the subject.
Oh, and there is a Directory of Open Access Journ [doaj.org]
A venue, or the length of a venue? (Score:2)
Stadiums instead of stadia is one common (and annoying) example.
Did you mean the plural of "stadium", a unit of length just shy of 200 m, or the plural of "stadium", a venue for concerts and sporting events? I always thought the former was "stadia" and the latter was "stadiums".
Re: (Score:2)
"Stadiums" is perfectly acceptable unless you are talking about the Greek measurement for length. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "sports stadia".
From Merriam Webster [merriam-webster.com]
From Oxford [askoxford.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The fact you spelled grammar wrong amuses me given what you were ranting against. However, I am not replying to point that out. That's merely an observation.
A friend and I were discussing this the other day. He is horrified by how many people he knows that watch reality shows, X Factor, Pop Idol etc... He asked if I did. He was greatly relieved when I said I didn't.
I think part of the problem is less and less people have the time to watch anything truly engaging, intelligent or demanding, which is why HBO's
Re: (Score:2)
Fewer people, not less people.
(I only point it out because you pointed out a spelling mistake.)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just writing styles but spoken English as well. I hope I'm not too pedantic, but surely the correct use of the correct word is essential to ensure correct understanding. Yes we could 'Wiki' language so that what the majority believes is 'right' is right but this road leads to a chaos where, eventually, mis-understanding will become the norm. As for split infinitives, I'm quite happy to boldly go there!
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, don't knock the wiki. If you don't like it, write your own encyclopediums.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't mean you can't complain about it, but it's sort of like complaining about how "times change". Well, yeah. That's what they do.
But fortunately, the point of speaking is still to be understood, so it's very unlikel
Re: (Score:2)
You are right. I never realized how wacky English was until I had a kid.
Most of the things my 2-year-old says are logically correct but not the accepted use of English. She figured out the whole tense thing really quickly, but still uses it incorrectly: "I throwed the ball," or "I falled down." Threw and fell are definitely not logical. Some comedian does a whole skit on this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Greek. Although the spirit of your reply is correct; the same applies to words such as "virus": the Anglicized plural "viruses" is acceptable, even though in the original Latin there is no plural form (it's a mass noun).
Re: (Score:2)
I did say "SUPPOSED to be getting to be ever better-educated." I agree with you that this may not be the case, and indeed all the evidence suggests that the general standard of education is still fairly poor. Just look at my spelling!
As for the Government's herding intentions, I thought politicians nearly always 'herded' (ie gathered in parties), whether the populus was dumbed down or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Stadia, stadiums...I'm beginning to wish I'd never mentioned it.
Re:I have seen the same (Score:5, Informative)
No-one says stadia.
I present myself as a counterexample.
It's not even correct to do so.
The Oxford English Dictionary and American Heritage Dictionary offer both "stadiums" and "stadia" as plurals for "stadium". Webster offers only "stadia".
English nouns (such as stadium) pluralize with an s on the end.
There are no simple criterions for determining how English nouns pluralise, whatever they may teach childs where you live. Yet somehow, in spite of the many "crisises" of which we hear so much in the mediums, the English language has survived. It seems to have more lifes than a cat.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think you were on some bo-bo "Websters" site. M-W.com (i.e. the "real Websters") accepts both forms.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounded great until I found that "some other chap" is Leo Laporte. I'll give it try anyway.