calmond writes:
"Neil deGrasse Tyson is so well known these that he is routinely compared with Carl Sagan, the great astronomer-communicator of the previous generation. And now, Tyson is actually turning into Sagan - albeit a hipper, less geeky version. This coming Sunday, he debuts on Fox and the National Geographic Channel as the host of the 13-part Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, co-produced by Fox and National Geographic. It is a re-imagining of the 1980s series that made the original Sagan famous. "I can not imitate Carl," says Tyson. "I would fail. But I am a really good version of myself. I have myself down perfectly."
Despite the name, Cosmos is about far more than astronomy. "One of the hallmarks of the original series," says Tyson, "is that Carl drew no lines between sciences that are traditionally separated." The same goes this time around. "When you are drinking in the entire universe, you realize that the boundaries we create are a little artificial. I talk about chemistry, biology, evolution, physics - it is all there."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jimshatt on Friday March 07 2014, @07:33AM
BTW: Colons in subjects don't work (can't preview or submit)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Friday March 07 2014, @07:57AM
I had no problem watching Sagan back in the day, but I saw a YouTube last year and I also found it difficult to watch. Stuff that worked back then just grates these days.
Still, big shoes to fill. The landscape has changed over the years and there are quite a few excellent competing science related series on these days. Several with big science names as hosts. And a few of those have personality and name recognition.
It will be interesting to say the least.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mcgrew on Friday March 07 2014, @03:40PM
Stuff that worked back then just grates these days.
Times change and we change with them. I watched 2001 the other day... I didn't remember it being so slow.
The landscape has changed over the years and there are quite a few excellent competing science related series on these days.
Unfortunately they're all on cable. I have better things to waste my money on than TV, which I get plenty of over the air. Two things that have me excited about this is first, Tyson. Second, I can watch it without going to the Pirate Bay.
Stupid cable companies should offer a la carte, I'd pay tewnty bucks for the ten channels I might actually watch but I refuse to pay for ESPN and BET and all those women's channels and absolute bullshit. Almost a hundred bucks so I can watch the History Channel and National Geographic? I don't think so.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 07 2014, @04:33PM
In these times, OTA has also a third advantage: No back-channel which could be used to spy on you.
(Score: 1) by Hawkwind on Friday March 07 2014, @06:19PM
A few months back I had the opposite reaction when watching 2001 with my 18 year old. I was worried after years of saying how the space scenes were intentionally made to be slow that my teenager would call bs on me. Fortunately he found the grove and really enjoyed it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 07 2014, @08:20PM
> Stuff that worked back then just grates these days.
Oh come on, corduroy blazers with elbow patches are still teh shizzle!! :)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Friday March 07 2014, @03:55PM
funny, that I was just watching the old cosmos series last nite. I was trying to find something to watch on my NAS, tried a few things: nah, that's too stupid and insulting; nah, that one is too energetic for later nite viewing. I want something calming and inspiring. oh right, I have cosmos on disk.
it makes me happy and restores my faith in people when I watch that series. yes, its slow and for the short attention span challenged, it may be too slow, but its quality stuff and carl is as hero-worthy as anyone could be, in the modern age, for us science and rational-thought fans.
I also really like neil and so I'm looking forward, a lot, to see what he has in store. I'm glad they chose neil as he communicates well, he's enthusiastic and he knows what he's talking about. I wish him great luck in trying to fill carl's shoes. I'm confident he'll do a great job.
what I worry about is the producers of any modern series. things made today are not of the same quality or have the same depth as older research-based shows.
I'll also wait until it hits the bay, as watching even one commercial will destroy the whole mood of the show, for me.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 07 2014, @10:34PM
Another series I think is great for that kind of viewing experience is James Burke's "Connections." I haven't seen the follow-ups ("Connections 2" etc.) or "The Day the Universe Changed," but Burke's style of informative exposition is sorely missed in today's ADHD look-shiny culture.
I tried watching "How the Universe Works" with Mike Rowe and it was just vapid. I couldn't wait for it to end and pick up a good science book instead.
(Score: 1) by dast on Sunday March 09 2014, @09:17PM
It's but a short hop there to Great Courses dvds, especially if your local university has them at the library. They really round out a science/literature dvd library. Calming stuff. Good for adhd folks like me.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by dast on Friday March 07 2014, @05:33PM
Try again. It is worth it. And get the book form. It is very good too. I always keep it on my shelf at work. That way you can get the content without Sagan's weird way of talking. I hear he did that due to technical difficulties with audio recording, but I have no facts to back that up.
Get the soundtrack too. And the t-shirt.
Wow, maybe I've really drunk the cool-aid... Nah. That isht is tight.
(Score: 1) by velex on Friday March 07 2014, @08:04PM
I'd also like to throw in a recommendation for Sagan's Pale Blue Dot. It shares a lot of ideas in common with Cosmos, but it's more geared towards space exploration and the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence.
I might also throw on the movie version of Contact at some point this weekend. I forget which episode of Cosmos, but in the "Cosmos Update" section at the end that was added 10 years after it was broadcast iirc, Sagan talks a bit about the basis for the wormhole plot device of Contact.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 07 2014, @07:32PM
Personally I'm the opposite: bored out of my gourd when we had to watch Cosmos in grade school, but now I could just watch them on repeat and never get tired. Same with David Attenborough.
(Score: 5, Informative) by unitron on Friday March 07 2014, @07:35AM
...gets rerun from first to last the day before, Saturday, the 8th, on NatGeo.
Check your local listings for times.
something something Slashcott something something Beta something something
(Score: 2, Interesting) by bopal on Friday March 07 2014, @08:25AM
For us non-US folks here: Is it possible to watch this online too?
(Score: 5, Funny) by ticho on Friday March 07 2014, @10:30AM
Yes [thepiratebay.se]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by bopal on Friday March 07 2014, @11:36AM
Great, so this is what you get when for once you want to be a law-abiding citizen :)
(Score: 5, Informative) by Koen on Friday March 07 2014, @12:50PM
Original series on YouTube [youtube.com].
/. refugees on Usenet: comp.misc [comp.misc]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Friday March 07 2014, @07:41AM
I haven't been truly excited for something on television for awhile.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by velex on Friday March 07 2014, @02:24PM
Agreed. I've been looking forward to this ever since I learned it was going to happen.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by DrMag on Friday March 07 2014, @02:44PM
I was fortunate enough to attend the pre-premiere last Tuesday, followed by the Q&A with Neil, Ann, and Seth [cosmosontv.com]. It's quite spectacular, and I'm looking forward to seeing the remainder of the series.
If you have some time, watch the replay of the Q&A. I'd give almost anything to have lunch with Neil Tyson and Seth MacFarlane. They can eat all the fries they want, too!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by irick on Friday March 07 2014, @08:20AM
It's too bad it's just a miniseries, It would have been truly amazing if this got its own show outright. Though I suppose that these days internet shows like crashcourse and pbs idea channel are providing a nice amount of material to inspire critical thinking. I really hope that we can get enough approachable content out there to really allow for curiosity and the love of learning to develop in society.
I choose to take the existence of good programming like this to mean we are at least making serious efforts to increase the scientific literacy and creativity of our culture as a whole. I really hope that's not just me being naive.
(Score: 1) by Woods on Friday March 07 2014, @02:19PM
I sure hope so too. I LOVE watching Ideachannel, it is by far my favorite. And only half the time, I am interested in the topic, the rest of the time I just really like to hear the views a smart person has. If I could, I would mod the channel +5 Insightful.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 08 2014, @07:45AM
I love listening to Neil Degrasse Tyson, but sometimes he does seem a bit full of himself. He's a very smart and entertaining guy, but it's important to remember that his field is astrophysics.
In other areas of science, he's a great popularizer but he's really no more qualified to talk about things like biology, medicine, climatology, and technology than Bill Nye is.
(Score: 5, Funny) by maxwell demon on Friday March 07 2014, @08:20AM
So when the cosmos reboots, do we have to expect a new big bang, or did they fix that now so we can get a more regular boot sequence?
Anyway, are there any updates installed for the physics engine? I mean, there are more than enough bugs in the cosmos. Start with the fact that global timekeeping simply doesn't work. I mean, a time that changes whenever you move, who programmed such a thing? Also, did they finally fix that undefined behaviour in the quantum module?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 5, Funny) by c0lo on Friday March 07 2014, @11:02AM
Now that's what happens when you use systemd instead of the well ordered initd.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 07 2014, @12:01PM
>I mean, there are more than enough bugs in the cosmos. Start with the fact that global timekeeping simply doesn't work. I mean, a time that changes whenever you move, who programmed such a thing? Also, did they finally fix that undefined behaviour in the quantum module?
It's not a but, it's a feature!
(Score: 1) by Woods on Friday March 07 2014, @02:47PM
Not to mention the fact that all sorts of weird stuff happens to the engine at really small scales, or at really low temperatures. I just wish they put more thought into the details, I cannot wait for the next patch rollout!
Quick side-note: I think the endgame must be somewhere out in the stars. Otherwise, why would there be so much detail in them? Maybe this whole thing is like Spore, and we are only in the first half of the game.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 07 2014, @04:48PM
I was hoping for Summer Glau to be in the reboot. And now you want a big bang.
I forsee some wonderful synergies.
(Score: 2) by kebes on Friday March 07 2014, @05:38PM
My point is that it's actually not easy to write down some laws of physics, and actually have them "work" in the sense that they: (1) do not lead to an internal contradiction at some point; (2) have the right features for 'interesting' structures (planets, humans) to both arise and persist. Of course on top of that it's difficult to get a full theory that matches experiments (the real world). But even if you just want to write down some equations, and you want them to describe a physically-interesting universe... it's not at all easy to do.
A natural objection might be that we've simulated all kinds of (simple, primitive) universes on computers, and they've "worked". E.g. one can run a simulation ignoring relativity (just Newtonian mechanics) and one gets sensible physical structures, time evolution, causal relations, etc. Yet if you look at any of our simulations, you will find that they are simulating a subset of reality (e.g. just thermal propagation through some material, or just galaxy formation due to some idealized particles). Even if we had an insanely powerful computer, it's not clear that any of those simulations would give rise to planets, stars, life, etc. (unless we put them in ad-hoc). In fact, it's usually obvious that they wouldn't give you much beyond what you bake directly into your initial conditions.
This is a subtle topic. On the one hand, it can be dismissed as philosophy, or even nonsensical. On the other hand, there are experimentally-testable aspects of this: At a minimum, we have an example of one universe with a set of (presumably consistent) laws that gives rise to complex physical objects. We can also try to search for alternative physical laws and see how easy it is to generate 'meaningful structures' (a mathematical exercise). If we could enumerate all the 'consistent physical frameworks' and only one of the options matched our reality, that would certainly be suggestive. There are some physicists who in fact try to study what ingredients in a physical theory are necessary for the emergence of meaningful realities/laws/universes/objects/life. Anyone interested might want to read Max Tegmark's somewhat whimsical papers on the topic: ultimate ensemble theory [arxiv.org], The Mathematical Universe [arxiv.org].
(Score: 2) by Boxzy on Friday March 07 2014, @11:25PM
As far as I am aware, it has not been proven that gravitons obey the speed of light in or out of an inertial reference frame. Until we detect gravity waves this will remain the case.
Go green, Go Soylent.
(Score: 5, Informative) by dublet on Friday March 07 2014, @08:32AM
Sounds a bit like what the UK's most prominent popstar/physicist Brian Cox did recently, the Wonders of Life [wikipedia.org], which was part of a series and includes Wonders of the Solar System and Wonders of the Universe. There's a youtube trailer here [youtube.com].
If you haven't seen it before, do check it out, it's rather good.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome. [dublet.org]"
(Score: 1) by kbahey on Friday March 07 2014, @02:57PM
I agree: it is good. The Universe series was on some premium channel in preview, then, the Wonders of Life is now playing on local public TV (TVO in Ontario).
The trailers for the Universe series were really annoying, and Brian's rigid British geeky demeanor was rather annoying. But watching the full episodes, he does a really great job explaining things.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning [2bits.com].
(Score: 4, Funny) by mister_playboy on Friday March 07 2014, @09:14AM
I, for one, welcome our new "Pluto is not a planet" Cosmos overlord!
(Score: 4, Informative) by DrMag on Friday March 07 2014, @02:38PM
I'll be curious to see how well each station that is broadcasting this show does in terms of viewership. From the official website [cosmosontv.com], you can find the list of channels showing the series:
* Fox
* National Geographic Channel
* Nat Geo WILD
* Nat Geo Mundo
* Fox Life
* FX
* FXX
* FXM
* Fox Sports 1
* Fox Sports 2
Who'd'a'thought?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Muad'Dave on Friday March 07 2014, @03:36PM
So which of these channels does Dish Network compress the least?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Boxzy on Friday March 07 2014, @11:05PM
was the science newer and more magnificent the first time we saw it? Watching it back now, it's inevitable to feel a little bored with science we have heard a thousand times. His wondrous adoration of the splendor we take for granted today is obviously dated. Don't blame the messenger for old news like we do a dupe.
Go green, Go Soylent.
(Score: 1) by captaindeerface on Saturday March 08 2014, @02:09AM
I have to say that I think the old cosmos with Carl has aged quite well.
I've recently shown it to some friends that are just getting interested in learning and had horrible past educations. They were fascinated by it (they are 24 and 28), to me it seems a bit slow but i already know the science and the story. for them they had never considered the Universe at large in any real way so it was basically mind blowing.
My three year old also thinks its awesome.
I think if you're just learning the material it's probably appropriately paced to really let you get it.
I hope the new version lives up to the old standard or exceeds it.
I've never done psychedelic drugs, but secretly, I wish I had some mushroom pizza or cactus salsa the first time I watched cosmos as a kid, I'm sure my head would have exploded.
-Captain DeerFace