23-10-2012, 10:08 PM
'Order and Disorder' with Jim Al-Khalili: BBC 4, Oct. 23rd. @ 21:00 hrs.
The theme was the science of communications in its various forms from ancient history to the modern age. (Since the latter part of that span involves digital electronics and computers / computing, I chose this section of the Forum in which to put this thread.)
I watched it all the way through. To be brief, I was more than disappointed: I was almost angry. It started with the ancient Babylonians etc. and tablet writing (circa 4000 B.C.) and then immediately jumped to the 19th. century: Jacquard's silk-weaving loom and the use of punched cards. Although there were a few fleeting references to the written word in book form, absolutely no mention of Caxton and the first printing press! And large chunks of other highly-relevant bits of history were similarly ignored. From that point on, the programme tried very hard to make out that the only form of 'communications' that exist are those of the 'digital kind'. Whilst I would agree that all information can be digitised, not all forms of communications are - or have been. So Wireless and Radio Communications didn't get a mention!
Of course, Alan Turin was referred to: and quite rightly so. But to say that he was the inventor of the first computer is debatable: Babbage received no mention. Naturally, Shannon featured. In fact, his work (and everything that followed from it) was a significant part of the broadcast: again, quite rightly so - but not in the broad scope that I would have expected. For example, his concept that the product of data rate, bandwidth and signal-noise ratio being constant in any given system with a particular energy level didn't get a look-in. And making even a passing reference to that concept would not have been out-of-place in the programme, since far more obtruse (and possibly peripheral) stuff was spoken about. "Oh My! Heavyweight Shannon Theorem stuff! Far too complex for our intended audience!" I hear the programme makers say. O.K., just explain that noise is the 'enemy' of information: most people can relate to that simple concept.
Then there was the general 'layout' of the programme. Far to much 'padding', far to many 'clever' video effects: all that added nothing of substance. And the presenter's idea that energy and information are equatable (Huh?) just went straight over my head.
Finally, if the programme had been 'tightened up' there would have been a few minutes (at least) to make a minimal passing reference to other forms of human communications: body language for example.
Overall, damn poor show, BBC! I know you can do a lot better than that: I've seen you present Science programmes a lot better.
Anyway, did you watch it? What did you think?
Al.
The theme was the science of communications in its various forms from ancient history to the modern age. (Since the latter part of that span involves digital electronics and computers / computing, I chose this section of the Forum in which to put this thread.)
I watched it all the way through. To be brief, I was more than disappointed: I was almost angry. It started with the ancient Babylonians etc. and tablet writing (circa 4000 B.C.) and then immediately jumped to the 19th. century: Jacquard's silk-weaving loom and the use of punched cards. Although there were a few fleeting references to the written word in book form, absolutely no mention of Caxton and the first printing press! And large chunks of other highly-relevant bits of history were similarly ignored. From that point on, the programme tried very hard to make out that the only form of 'communications' that exist are those of the 'digital kind'. Whilst I would agree that all information can be digitised, not all forms of communications are - or have been. So Wireless and Radio Communications didn't get a mention!
Of course, Alan Turin was referred to: and quite rightly so. But to say that he was the inventor of the first computer is debatable: Babbage received no mention. Naturally, Shannon featured. In fact, his work (and everything that followed from it) was a significant part of the broadcast: again, quite rightly so - but not in the broad scope that I would have expected. For example, his concept that the product of data rate, bandwidth and signal-noise ratio being constant in any given system with a particular energy level didn't get a look-in. And making even a passing reference to that concept would not have been out-of-place in the programme, since far more obtruse (and possibly peripheral) stuff was spoken about. "Oh My! Heavyweight Shannon Theorem stuff! Far too complex for our intended audience!" I hear the programme makers say. O.K., just explain that noise is the 'enemy' of information: most people can relate to that simple concept.
Then there was the general 'layout' of the programme. Far to much 'padding', far to many 'clever' video effects: all that added nothing of substance. And the presenter's idea that energy and information are equatable (Huh?) just went straight over my head.
Finally, if the programme had been 'tightened up' there would have been a few minutes (at least) to make a minimal passing reference to other forms of human communications: body language for example.
Overall, damn poor show, BBC! I know you can do a lot better than that: I've seen you present Science programmes a lot better.
Anyway, did you watch it? What did you think?
Al.
