Wonders of Life Trailer - Brian Cox And Monty Python has been added as a related post - related requested by Grimm on that post.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'wonders of life, song, brian cox, monty python, eric idle' to 'wonders of life, song, brian cox, monty python, eric idle, galaxy song' - edited by Grimm

They should film him with a majestic helicopter pan as he stands on the top of a mountain and explains gravity.

While fighting Brian Cox hand to hand.

>> ^ponceleon:

Don't have time to see the whole thing now, but I feel like the new challenge for journalism in the information age is that they need to understand that freedom of the press is not freedom to report without checking facts. Sensationalism is the rule rather than actual reporting. In an age where "reality" TV is scripted and caters to the lowest commmon denominator, as a society we have to hope that this too will bounce back.
If anyone saw last night's South Park, it was pure brilliance. We just need James Cameron to come in and raise the bar dammit!


Journalists work for money the same as most folks. Good journalism in the sense you're talking about takes time, and therefore is expensive. Furthermore, balanced, dry articles about the nuanced nature of the world around us don't lend themselves well to attention-grabbing headlines, a problem perhaps exacerbated by the need for page views and the ability to track, per article posted, what people view most.

I mean, really, what are more people going to want to read - or rather, see - "Higgs Boson identified with high probability" or "Lady Catherine caught with her tits out - photos inside!"?

We've conflated information with entertainment. I wonder how to turn that particular tide back.

Your video, Brian Cox: it is not acceptable to promote bad science, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 8 Badge!

Mille grazie!In reply to this comment by eric3579:
*promote

Thanks and all fixed
In reply to this comment by spawnflagger:
*dead
(BBC copyright infringement)

>> ^Trancecoach:

Does this account for inflation? What/Where are the actual numbers?


Inflation would favour science - a payment today has a set value (bank bailouts) but payments in the past only stand to increase. If it doesn't account for inflation then i can't imagine how it would add up when you consider that the prices of HOUSES rapidly reduce to merely thousands of pounds when you go back only a hundred years (or less according to my nan) in britain.

This is one case of a trustable talking head though. I'm not a fan of brian cox but he is a very good physicist and he wouldn't say it if he hadn't thoroughly checked which is more than i can say for the others on the panel. I'd also like to see a simple chart though, because his words are wise - imagine what could be done if we weren't getting robbed blind and led by the fucking blind.

I'd be gay for Brian Cox.

>> ^garmachi:

Please stop calling it the god particle.


Upvote twice if I could.

Brian Cox explains the LHC at TED, recommended watching.
http://videosift.com/video/Brian-Cox-at-TEDtalks-on-the-Large-Hadron-Collider

>> ^renatojj:

Wow, if he stayed in character all the time, I bet he'd be chewing on Jodie Foster's ribs before the end of the movie. That's how amazing this actor is.


Yeah, fair enough but I still prefer Brian Cox's take on "Hannibal Lecktor" in Manhunter. Hopkins likens his performance to a children's monster tale and he's right- his lecter has the characteristics of a classic movie monster. Cox on the other hand was chillingly real.

I've always wondered why Brian Cox didn's reprise the role in Silence of the Lambs, he refuses to comment on it.

edit: Okay, he has spoken about it, if anyone's interested this is a very good interview http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/1075052/brian_cox_interview_manhunter_hannibal_the_cannibal_adaptation_michael_mann_and_brett_ratner.html

>> ^shole:

Things do need to be simplified when doing a show of a limited time.
They can't do a show where it's like browsing wikipedia, jumping from one subject into some minute detail of it, and digging deeper until you forget what you were studying in the first place.
Not that i would mind if someone were to make a show like that.


exactly but the compromise is not saying verbs and words that have no real meaning. The compromise is saying , " this is what it is called " " these scientists have done x " "the ramifications are y"
and then include links at the end of a show or a short sting that tells people where to go if they are interested in perusing it or what books to read / maths to study.

The general public is ignorant as to what the basic principles of the scientific method are so trying to then explain the more abstract aspects of quantum mechanics is utterly futile.

Still the lecture was a realy good effort and most of it was fantastic , IT is depressing to me that your average joe on the street probably doesn't know of the slit experiment and that a good proportion of the adults in that room with him didn't .

Look up Richard Hammond's Engineering Connections. When it works it's quite entertaining, when it doesn't quite work it's exactly as you described (and still a bit entertaining).
In reply to this comment by shole:
Things do need to be simplified when doing a show of a limited time.
They can't do a show where it's like browsing wikipedia, jumping from one subject into some minute detail of it, and digging deeper until you forget what you were studying in the first place.
Not that i would mind if someone were to make a show like that. :