dmfk For such interesting topics, I was really disappointed.It was quite obvious that this production crew was more concerned with creative 'shots' and post production editing than actually making a useful documentary. It got to the point where I was actually laughing at how hard they were trying to be creative and original with the production shots. There were also a ton of stock footage shots that had very little to do with the specific topic at hand. Like, footage of people walking around modern-day downtown Chicago.The host was brand new to me, and, I couldn't stand him. Very condescending and somewhat annoying. I love science and shows showcasing science, but this was just a show about how to have cool camera shots ruin a good show.

polygnotus I watched the episode on Édouard-Léon Scott de Martinville, inventor of the phonautograph. Fascinating topic.I barely made it to the end. Between the host Steven Johnson's patronizing condescension as if his audience were three year olds, and the dreadfully slow pace at which information leaked out between all his cutesy stammers and stutters, not to mention the pauses to make room for yet another unneeded production gimmick, I found this program simply unbearable.This was a wonderfully interesting subject. The first recordings of the human voice! Amazing.But in some bizarre attempt to dumb it down to a 1st grade intellect, all the fascination was stripped away leaving a sickly sweet Leave it to Beaver meets Disney patina.And most incredibly, the real gem of the show, the actual digitization of the original "phonoautographs" into renderable audio files, garnered a whopping 15 seconds of screen time.One wonders if, perhaps, the producers were less enamored with personality and more on the actual subject matter, we may have been treated to a better treatment of it.Even my 9 yr old found it slow and condescending. And when she realized that no further recording would be forthcoming, her exact words, unprovoked or influenced by me, were, "Aaaah. Bummer."

happyseaurchin I haven't read the book, and I found this series brilliant. Why? Because it shows connected thinking, which reflects the subtle and pervasive effect of social influence.Steven Johnson brings to our attention a few specific people in their specific social contexts, bringing humanity to the challenge facing the inventor. Quite often, the invention is met with ridicule, e.g. Heddy Lammar's frequency jumping idea, before it is adopted, in this case to protect inter-ship communication. And then, Steven shows the influence.Steven is interested in pervasive technology changes. Where one invention creates a platform of social change, e.g. the humble neon light and signage, and the corresponding business invention of the 'franchise'.As a presenter, Steven keeps it light. He is dealing with world-changing inventions and some genius characters. He could easily be a nerd, but he is charming and self-effacing. For all his humour, notice how he ends most of his skits with an understated though defined moment of gravitas. Requires a keen listener, a sensitive viewer, which I believe the material deserves.I haven't seen anything as intelligent as this on terrestrial TV. In the UK, it is on BBC 3, and I wouldn't be surprised if it reprises on the more mainstream channels.

TxMike At first blush a 60-minute TV program on "glass" might seem, well ... too transparent. I mean, glass is glass. It is clear, it lets us see through it, while keeping the rain and cold out. But where did glass come from? How was it first discovered? How many innovations did it make possible?While I cannot attempt to cover it all in this short review, I will give one example. It starts with European winemakers. They used screw-driven grape presses to extract the juice. Then one enterprising gentleman names Gutenberg had the idea of using the basic mechanics of a wine press to make a printing press, allowing for the first time the mass production of printed books. But where's the glass connection?Well with books came more and more readers. But many of those found they could not read the blurry print, because of poor eyesight. So the yet scarce use of spectacles became a giant need and the development of new lenses led to things like the microscope and the telescope, and the rest if the history of discovery of both the micro world and the distant worlds of our universe.All because someone found out how to make clear glass and others came up with new uses.As a scientist myself, a Chemist who first hand made use of the many applications of glass in the laboratory, it is a totally engrossing subject, presented very well. I hope to see all the others.