Note--it takes the full moon in about 2 minutes--from when it first peaks out--to emerge from behind a building.
Addendum--If anyone saw the meteor shower the other night, count yourself lucky. As i was driving west on Wilshire Blvd towards home, i looked up and saw bright streaks in the sky and thought i was seeing city lights. BUT NO!
Im always amazed when the sky is something other than dark and seemingly static.
Last night, i went to bed with the intentions to get through a ton of writing the next morning, but instead i woke up and immediately shirked off the responsibility for a trip to the beach, like a good little L.A. sun worshiper. I didn't leave out personal development entirely, though--i brought a geology text and a newsweekly that ended up wrinkled and sticky with sunscreen. In the heat, I longed to jump in the water and swim through the waves. Swimming on the mind, I found this video when i got home--a BBC film of a very slowly progressing wave shot from below and inside. Mesmerizing.
Waves are a good example of a seemingly simple phenomenon that, upon closer examination, is actually extremely complex. Ocean surface waves are made by wind moving over the surface of the ocean. They form a kind of circular motion--energy is moving forward, but there is little actual motion of matter forward, however much it looks that way. The EIS is working on ways to capture wave energy for the sake of generating power.
I've been watching science television incessantly all month (as if i wouldn't have been already), for an article im writing about the problem of viewing it as journalism/education, and i've come to realize that the accuracy of science programming on tv runs from right on (the producer spent forever talking to experts and weighing facts) to totally wack (not even worth mentioning.)
I know, television is ultimately about entertainment, but it's still disconcerting that there is no incentive for filmmakers to get the science right. Nat geo is the only network with fact checkers, and other networks just put the onus on the producers. We rely on their passion and willingness to work hand-in-hand with scientists or we end up with trash that passes as science.
I just had to share this video--it's totally hilarious. Though its a spoof, I wish other media would even pay this much attention to debunking stupid claims. John Stewart calls himself the sworn enemy of bullshit. I can respect that.
Note--it takes the full moon in about 2 minutes--from when it first peaks out--to emerge from behind a building.
Addendum--If anyone saw the meteor shower the other night, count yourself lucky. As i was driving west on Wilshire Blvd towards home, i looked up and saw bright streaks in the sky and thought i was seeing city lights. BUT NO!
Im always amazed when the sky is something other than dark and seemingly static.
I've been watching science television incessantly all month (as if i wouldn't have been already), for an article im writing about the problem of viewing it as journalism/education, and i've come to realize that the accuracy of science programming on tv runs from right on (the producer spent forever talking to experts and weighing facts) to totally wack (not even worth mentioning.)
I know, television is ultimately about entertainment, but it's still disconcerting that there is no incentive for filmmakers to get the science right. Nat geo is the only network with fact checkers, and other networks just put the onus on the producers. We rely on their passion and willingness to work hand-in-hand with scientists or we end up with trash that passes as science.
