Kind of sad to see Tom's output cutting drastically. His channel is one of my fav among the science channels.

There way too many youtubers that overreact, scream and drag on and on on the setup instead of getting to the point of science. I can't stand those too much. Not Tom.

Close enough for the *science channel?

I'll agree with everyone on TYT. I like the message, but the delivery needs work.

Captain Disillusion. I enjoy debunking, but the persona and gimmick makes it hard to watch most of the time.

Thunderf00t. I enjoyed him for awhile, especially his Creationist debunking era, but then something happened and I just can't do his videos most of the time. Partly it was his stance on elevator gate, which he just pushed and pushed endlessly, but he seemed to just go off after that whole incident. I don't mind the opinion, I disagree, but he just wouldn't let it go... and never got back to what he originally was doing.

Oh and yeah, Angry Videogame Nerd I agree with. Way too much fluff...

Markplier. My kids love him, so my suggestion box is full of him for a few days after every other weekend. I love Twitch and stuff like that, but I don't find his personality at all enjoyable. He's a Pew De Pie wannabe and I can't stand Pew either.

Earthling Cinema... no. Just no. Another annoying personality, I just don't get the appeal.

Speaking of cinema related ones, Cinema Sins. They give 50 or 60, and really only a third or so actually count, even on movies I hated. I appreciate critique but I don't know, I normally can't watch a full episode.

I'll agree with others about mean spirited pranks. Truth distorters, especially when it is for financial, political or religious gain, which I guess is most of those types.

Joshua Feuerstein is a perfect example of the above.

People doing videos in cars, even if parked... there are exceptions to that, like the guy who does carpool karaoke, but most others...

Guy on the street type videos. It's been a format around for too long. How many people did you have to edit out to get a few idiots? Occasionally they'll show one person who knows among 8 others.

When otherwise smart science channels like SciShow and the like use the word "theory" in the common sense of the term and not the scientific use. It continues to distort the public image of the word. They come to a science channel, see it used where they should be using hypothesis. If they want to keep it simple and use guess or ideas. Just don't use the word theory until it's a more accepted theory. This way people don't keep saying "it's just a theory" on actual facts like the big bang, evolution, human accelerated climate change, etc.

"Promotional Consideration Furnished By Bethesda Softworks LLC".

It's an ad. It's a shame because I love the Fallout games, even now they're just Elder Scrolls With Guns, but I hate how marketing seeps into everything. I fully expect all the White Guy Explains Science channels to do Fallout-themed episodes in the next week or two.

*quality video and another great science channel I did not know about. Thanks!

Yup, fake. you can clearly see the pattern of the magnet as he moves it under the paper.

@blackfox42, this should be removed from 'education' and 'science' channels.

Yeah, this is just bullshit.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/did-a-high-ranking-whistleblower-really-reveal-that-the-cdc-covered-up-proof-that-vaccines-cause-autism-in-african
-american-boys/

I'm really tempted to remove this from the science channel because there's no science going on here. There is plenty of lies and manufactured controversy though.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Science-Channels-100-Greatest-Discoveries-in-Physics

Tags for this video have been changed from 'oreos, oreo, oreo cookies, how its made, the science channel, discovery channel' to 'oreos, Newman Os, cookies, how its made, the science channel, discovery channel' - edited by Trancecoach

Tags for this video have been changed from 'oreos, oreo, oreo cookies, how made, the science channel, discovery channel' to 'oreos, oreo, oreo cookies, how its made, the science channel, discovery channel' - edited by lucky760

>> ^joedirt:

This stupid video isn't even to scale. Carl Lewis would have been 7 feet from the finish line. The stupid video needs to exaggerate an lie about how far people are from the finish line... Two strides or one body length away, not like 20 feet back.
Why make a "science" like video then lie in it.


As they said in the video themselves this is a field of runners separated by 3 seconds of time. Which will not be that much distance when you boil down the facts that the fastest runner will possibly get near or at 27 mph (something Usian Bolt stuck up there) and less. The slowest runners I imagine will ATLEAST be above 20 mph which really does make this field closer and closer together. They would all be running somewhere between 10 m/s to 10.4 m/s in 12.6 s (the times they ran a VERY long time ago) or up to and past 9.6 s in the modern era.

If you weren't that great of a runner, very quickly, with these type of numbers however, you would find yourself very far behind--it must be almost shocking to see someone gain a 3-5 meter lead on you if you slip up, particularly in the longer length Olympic sprints. It's a great infographic doing everything right, in fact I think they could literally take this concept and bump it up to a 30-60 minute show about the history of Olympic running; I'd throw it on the Discovery or Science Channels. Just look at the numbers I pulled up in a very short amount of time to give some comparisons, there are FAR more things to look at and open up this conversation much, much further... More things to look at could be anything taking in ANY possible connection to a sprinter's performance which may include a few things some people would never even think of, some examples: average foot-span covered each sprinting step and how that has changed with time (longer-shorter, side strides or are they all in line), the possibility of body weight distribution being re-mapped on the body from training, workouts, and diet, over time and has this been a possible endemic change in society (have we become more top heavy, bottom heavy, or averaged out--how does it compare with analysis we can try to make about our Olympic forefathers--with societal changes any of the things I've listed have the possibility of starting there first, moving outward; a true evolutionary or genetic change that might be observed...), shoes and their timeline with features, surfaces used by the athletes through time, how training was done throughout history, our personal livelihood with things like vitamins, a balanced and INFORMED diet allows you to get more out of your muscles then you normally would EVER get, and there is SO much more they could explore!

I would love to see a very well done show about this and if they cover the subject substantially and extensively enough, I wouldn't mind it being a short one year series. As long as they stay true to the overall presentation found in this infotainment/info-graphic and the information displayed here should be, somewhat, natural to us and keep us at ease in which all this material/information is able to be displayed in this show and always making that information available for us to consume and compare just as easily as here. So to me having a large presence online hand-in-hand With a show would be important, of course providing more info-graphics like this for us. One can hope that they'd read our comments and realize, just from a small clip, they have something bigger here--if they want it...

I wasn't quite sure why they "pulled" out the field so far as well, but all I can think is that they were trying to put a exclamation mark on the overall acceleration of the genesis of runners into the modern day.

Off topic, I've actually removed a lot of the channels I get on TV because of all these formerly great channels that is Discover, History, Science channels. I remember when these were amongst the only good channels on TV. The quest for greater ratings has seen them turn to shit though.. it's sad.

And the Science Channel now shows a lot of Firefly. Love Firefly, but really, Science Channel? At least when they gave up on Discovery Kids, and Hasbro bought in, they changed the name to the Hub instead of "Discovering" old episodes of "Jem and the Holograms".

Here you go: http://science.discovery.com/tv/trek-nation/ Looks like it's not on their site for full viewing though. Only clips.

Originally aired Nov. 30th. Won't be on again until Dec 21 5 and 8PM, and the 28th 6 and 9PM. There's this too: http://treknationmovie.com/ If you are any kind of a fan of the franchise, this is a must see.

>> ^ant:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^ant:
>> ^Duckman33:
I watched this. It's a great show. I learned a lot about Star Trek I never knew before.

It was good? I need to see it, but I don't have cable/satellite.

Yeah, it was really good actually. It was on the Science Channel last week. You could probably find it on their website or a friendly torrent site.

Where's their web site? I couldn't find it. I did see a 10 GB online, but too big! Eh, I will wait.