I don't anymore. I got tired of it, thus I revert back on the old school style. Reading books and reading e-books left and right. And the internet have been a great addition to my learning experience. Educational TV shows suchs as these seems to drop on the level of other shows that only wants to promote false thoughts and getting near to that pop "culture" niche. That's my two cents.

I've personally never watched a TV channel to learn something. Sure, sometimes there's a show on ANY channel that opens my eyes, gives me information, basically teaching me something... but the things they show on  Discovery (for example) isn't all that useful for me atleast.

What am I supposed to learn from a TV? How to farm in Africa? Perhaps it isn't the way of learning I'm thinking of. We get a lot of "useless" knowledge about a lot of things. Fun facts, trivia, etc. How many survives after a tsunami, rebuilding a city after a disaster, exotic fishes... But it's not like I can use that, Not as an adult. The same goes for the more in depth things I watched as a kid, a series about astronomy! It was really helpful, learning about planets, stars, galaxies. But that was as a kid. It was an easy way to learn that kind of things, which was important at that time. Now, watching that as an adult, I wouldn't learn that much, it would be as I mentioned before; Trivia. The largest planet is Jupiter... that's not going to help me get a job, or perform well on my job (unless I'm an astronomer, but then I should've already known that).

Anyway, enough with that rambling... If this kind of information actually is what I do want to learn, the problem would also be to find it. Searching for a specific topic, waiting to get ahold of that one show, get stuck in traffic and miss it. It's way easier to just look it up on Wikipedia. Less entertaining perhaps! The option then might be to get a book on the subject from the library, or browse random webpages searching for that particular topic.

So in conclusion:
For something specific - Wikipedia / Books / Google.
For random stuff - TV (And Wikipedia, clicking away from one subject to the next)
For entertainment AND still informative stuff about history, africa, space, etc. - TV no doubt!

You're touching on one of the largest gripes that Reddit has. As a Redditor myself, I can agree with the sentiment that the Discovery Channel, TLC and History are going down the wrong road. Hell, even the Weather Channel is showing movies and original programming and not doing their forecast on the 8s.

I do, however, believe that one shining moment History has had in the last several years was "America: The Story of Us." It was a fantastic documentary on the development of the US. That said, these are few and far between. It's all Nostradamus and Modern Marvels now.

As a teacher, we can get these videos from the school libraries and show them to our students. The other day, I showed a Modern Marvels video on Mount Rushmore, because we were studying the CCC during the Depression. I even had a student write a paper on Gutzom Borglam because he got so interested in the subject. A shining moment for me as a teacher. While watching an hour long special on the construction of Mount Rushmore (and subsequently Stone Mountain, GA) is a fantastic way to spend an hour, I had to watch that video six times in one day. Screw Modern Marvels. *rageface*

But then, I've still got Netflix. Their streaming package contains hundreds of documentaries that roll over constantly. This month alone, I've watched one on Yosemite, Yellowstone, Denali, the Amazon and Lewis & Clark.

I also find myself turning to PBS. I've always loved PBS, but lately, I think they've noticed the disconnect people are getting with channels like History. They're stepping up their game, to me, it seems. Even more than ever before. The frequency of Ken Burns documentaries seem to be on the rise. The one he did on Mark Twain was amazing (even though there was a conspicuous lack of mentions to Guinan and Data, hur hur hur).

In the last few months, I've seen one on the history of public television. Sherry Lewis, Jim Henson, Willard Scott. Fantastic. They re-aired Ken Burns' history of jazz series a little while back. They re-aired the National Parks series. And last night they did a special on Woody Allen. The man has been writing his stories and film scripts on the same typewriter since the 40s!

PBS has really filled the gap that History, Discovery and TLC left behind. Not that they haven't always quality programming, but it seems to be better than ever. Maybe it has something to do with President Obama's economic stimulus package. Who knows.

Personally, I don't care about Kate Gosselin's new haircut or how many babies the Duggars have (even though she needs to be spayed). Deadliest Catch was kind of cool in the first season, but now it's just a screaming match and well beyond its sell-by date.

The sad thing about PBS, Alabama Public Television is in such dire straits from the governor witholding funds that they've had to consolidate all of their operations into a single office building and studio in Birmingham. For a long time there were studios in Huntsville, Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, Montgomery, Mobile and Dothan. Those days of specializing local access broadcasting are over in my state.

  I guess I wondered if we were coming to more of a stalemate in terms of mobile and portable gaming is because I just find it hard to think about what could really happen next. I'm not sure what else that's really different that could happen in the immediate future that would really be 'revolutionary.' The idea you proposed, Commodore, yeah, I could probably see that happen eventually, but I have no idea how far or soon into the future. I'm also really not sure about handheld gaming really being run out of town, if you will, in five years. I'm not personally seeing that happen, but well, this is why I'm not a millionaire, I guess.

Anyway, for this week's question, I don't really watch TV, so I guess my answer by default is that I go elsewhere. I also got tired of the History Channel turning into yet another channel for garbage that has absolutely nothing to do with 'history.' At least....not really. I guess they have shows that.....eegghhhh, you can force some 'historical' connections into, but that's really not the same as say, a biography, or historical documentary.

I do admit that I have had some fascination with some of their not-history shows in the past. Yeah, it's kind of unfortunate they rely more on conspiracy theories and....aliens and...monsters, but when I was a kid, I was fascinated by that kind of stuff. Not because I believed all of it, but because the ideas that people really think they see and experience such bizarre things. I still am kind of fascinated by it, actually, but I still don't really watch shows like that anymore.

To educate yourself, the best places are probably still books. Oftentimes, the older the book, the better, when it comes to history (yes, I realize it still may not be the case, hence my use of conditionals). Yes, you still have to be cautious of what you are reading and who you are reading it by. Howard Zinn, as popular as he was, does come out and admit his books are biased. Well, for a history book, that's not a good idea.

As far as what you can learn from TV, Tim, well, potentially a lot! It depends on what you're watching. Besides, is learning something just for the sake of learning really a 'bad' thing? I wouldn't say so. :P

The History Channel HAS become garbage, which is why I'm a fan of what south park did. The History Channel has had some different "eras" though. I remember around the mid 00s (maybe 03 to about 06) they probably should of renamed the channel "The world war 2 channel", but it was still educational and interesting.

I felt the Military Channel for a while was a good alternative to what the history channel has become, but its starting to go downhill too.

I still like to watch documentaries and learn new things while watching TV (hell, with how bad most TV shows are these days, educational TV is really all i watch. Well, that and Community on nbc), but its much harder to find good educational programming. CSPAN has book tv on the weekends which is something our family loves to watch when we get together every month or so.

For a while Current TV had this special series on 50 documentaries to see before you die, which i watched most of (the king of kong: a fist full of quarters is a great one that relates to this web site if anyone's interested).

With all that said, as one becomes more knowledgeable, it becomes harder to learn "enough to quench your thirst" from a 30 minute or hour long program. Thus tv sometimes can be a difficult way to learn from. This is where i feel the internet and books are much better for learning purposes.

So to answer the wringer, yes I still use tv to learn new things. Hell, for the most part educational tv and sporting events are the only thing i still find tolerable about TV. But due to a lot of things ("reality" tv still being the most cost efficient use of airtime for one), it is becoming harder to find good educational programming.

And i agree with mr. k, its a damn shame what were doing to PBS across the nation.

Ah no, ShirowWolf, I think it came out wrong :) I basically meant somewhat what DTX180 said, about it being "harder to learn enough to quench your thirst from a  30 minute or hour long program". And also, I'm not sure we get all those interesting and really educative shows here in Sweden, because you can't possibly learn a lot from a 30 minute show, though it would be possible if it was a series of 30 minute episodes. Though you can't choose what to learn, and I've never seen one show (except for a few language learning shows) that actually "teaches", trying to educate the viewer in a way that a, for example, university class would. It wouldn't be as in depth as a class would be... This is based on the Swedish supply of TV shows.

And of course I agree with you, there's nothing bad at all to learn something just for the sake of learning! I am all for it, but sometimes you just don't have time for it, or want to dedicate your attention to something special.

I for example LOVE the archeology show "Time team", it's really interesting, and it's aired on an educative channel (or what you call them, like Discovery, History Channel, etc.). However, what do I learn from that show? Not much really. I get some insight on how archeologists work, or should I say, how financially sponsored tv-show archeologists work :P (Let's face it... there are benefits working with a camera team). Other than that, there is just occasional trivia about some 400 year old pottery, brittish churches, grave rituals and other interesting stuff.

Now, this is all dependant on the shows of course. And in my case, the supply of shows. And isn't that actually the question? Is TV (still) a good way to find stuff to learn? or do we look elsewhere?

Also, maybe I'm expecting too much? Take Roo's "The way games works", now those are educational and gives in depth information on a rather specific area each episode. Sure, it'd be even more educational if he didn't cut most of the science away, how the forumlas work etc. etc. But that's what I would watch on tv, to actually learn something. Most of the other things I've seen has been stuff aimed for 10 year olds regarding the depth of the topic of the shows.

I hope I didn't write anything weird again :P

Since the analog to digital over the air transition back in August this year I been without TV, but since I was out of town for October I had access to cable and watched the History Channel and know about the alien theories.

The one show I watched the person mentioned how this one pillar that the carvings are the same on all four side and that the measurements are perfectly mirrored on all sides and are craved smooth showing no signs of tool markings that this can only be done with today's technology. (Myself I am thinking erosion from the sand since it is in a desert for the smoothness and people had more time, patience and care for detail back then.)

Anyhow I also noticed that the History, Discovery, A&E channels (besides that you swear that they could all be the same channel) that the shows are setup in the same format where a person is sitting in front of a green screen commenting about what just happened or personal thoughts about what just happened.

Educational values no, I look up stuff on the Internet but it keeps taking me to Wikipedia for the most part which can not be accurate sometimes.
(I'm starting to think about buying an converter box again so I can watch TVO, I miss it.)

I'm sort of in a tough spot here. It's been more than a year since I had cable hooked up to my TV and not once have I missed it. A lot of this applies to The History Channel, Discovery, or TLC, three networks that I used to love but now couldn't really care less about, all coming down to the dreaded MTV syndrome: No one was watching the niche, so they had to diversify.

Right now I use Netflix exclusively for my day-to-day entertainment needs that traditional TV used to meet (and not because Netflix is wonderful because seriously go screw yourself Netflix), meaning that, like Mr. K said, I don't have to be watching The History Channel to see its programming. I can pull up all manner of documentaries, probably my favorite form of viewing entertainment for some reason, and watch for hours. I love that I can cut the fluff in between shows I'd prefer to learn about. I don't care about which cars drive fast. I do, however, care about the finer details of The Civil War. That's fascinating on a whole different level.

I think there might be a few more things to keep the handheld market going. One is that the specialized platforms would be more suited to gaming at a lower cost. You talk about how these devices are going to have everything, but it would cost significantly more to integrate powerful gaming into the mix then to buy a system that focuses on gaming. 

So, just to sum up you think we should get cloud gaming on handhelds and have one large library? Playing God of War and have to go on a road trip? Just play on your ehh eyephone and play on the road! I can deal with that and I love it, actually, but it'll be difficult for it to be brought into the market and the transition will be difficult.

Also, I feel the touch screen phones should stay away from action games, I've played the Streets of Rage on an iphone, ugh. It was okay. I've also played a Ghost n' Goblin's game (Ghouls 'n Ghosts or something after the first game? I have no idea, that shit confuses me) and it was difficult to control too, and they made 2 of those, both exclusive to the iphone! (Or when I checked) Although I do think JRPGs would be great. I would love to play a Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior, Golden Sun, Mother, etc. remake on iPhone where you just tap where you want your characters to walk or in menus. I think someone mentioned Final Fanasy on iphone in the last one, but I don't know if you have a fake controller or what. I'd imagine. I've even seen Secret of Mana on iPhone, ugh...

Oh and I have a DS phat and I love it! I never got another version but my brother got a DS lite, another DS lite when he broke the first, and then a DSi. I kept my DS until 3DS, but I'll probably trade that in for a new model if it comes with a more natural second circle pad without that weird as hell attatchment. I remember when my neighborhood first got our taste of the DS. Christmas 2004. At 10am I remember walking out my front door and a neighbor across the street asking me what I got, I waved my Nintendo DS at him and he told me he got the same. The oldest boy in each house had gotten a DS in my neighborhood, while I wasn't able to enjoy it with some of the kids my age, they waited until their birthday in spring or summer to get theirs, but those first months of Metroid Prime Hunter Demo, and Super Mario 64 DS were amazing. I miss those days.

Educational Television? I've never given them much thought, figuring only the people who have a select genra watch. I never noticed until DTX180 pointed out mid 2000s were my little brother's World War 2 phase. He has lost interest in it, but he is still pretty knowledgable. I always credited it to us living on Oahu, Hawaii and he went to Pearl Harbor Memorial plenty of times. He had plenty of books, he played Medal of Honor: Rising Sun (The Japan front one) and there were plenty of shows on History channel. I was so glad when I got my own room after my sister moved out! Oh and also Jurrasic Park 3, I don't remember a single scene from it (I think that was the one with the guy who gets eaten on the toilet? I dunno) but he watched it so many times I got sick of that too.

So I always assumed people who liked WW2, or the Civil War, or Ancient China always payed attention to the Hisory Channel to watch their own show, I never would have thought of people watching these things to learn shit outside of their favorite subject. When there was something that seemed some what interesting we would turn that on, I'm not a fan of Modern Marvels or How It's Made but when I'm looking through a guide and I see it I'll check to see what episode it is and if it's something like "Holy shit, how the hell do they make X? I must know!" Or atleast I used to do that. These days I'll only turn on shows I watch normally at the time I've memorized their comings and goings or DVR them for later (Big Bang Theory, How I Met Your Mother, Scrubs, Wilfred, Survivor, Big Brother, Happy Endings, Modern Family, Family Guy, Cleveland Show, American Dad, Simpsons, Allen Gregory, South Park, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, and Tosh.0 are all I watch on TV, which seems like a lot, but meh, since half of these aren't on season most of the time). I'm more likely to watch an Intnernet show, which as people have pointed out can be educational for my specific purposes (I like retrospectives or history shows about technology or video games a lot. Also Let's Plays are very easy to sink a lot of time into and then there are so many more to watch!)

As for these days I will only go guide surfing (Because who uses those channel up and down buttons anymore unless the two channels you're watching are right next to eachother?) when I need to go to sleep and my laptop is being annoying so I can't just turn on JustinTV, and I can't just leave it off because then I'll be lost in throught too easily. Then I turn on something Discovery or History have that can be interesting but not really that much so. You've got to be careful, because a good episode of Dirty Jobs or Pawn Stars can keep you up way too long, and I do enjoy these shows. Sure they're not educational, I might have more respect for someone who says they breed chickens, but I'm not really going to have my life enhanced by it. At best we have something interesting to discuss over dinner or a way to make everyone puke if it was Dirty enough.

I can say this is interesting timing, because just last night I saw on a channel my guide called GREEN (I don't know if it is the green channel or if that is just the character limit for something that makes more sence) but they had a 4 hour loop of 3 different shows (One was 2 hours) about Ancient Egypt, looping until about 5am. I was so pissed because it could have helped me on my Egypt test if it came on 2 weeks earlier (I got a 41. I've been lazy throughout my whole school life. Teachers going over stuff so much it gets lodged into my brain and when the test comes I appear smart. So they put me in the smart classes. Then I get to High School, and my history teacher dosen't teach us shit! She gives us 2 chapters to take notes on and when we come in we take a quiz, but we can use our notes. Then we very briefly go over it and this repeats for 2 weeks- a month until we have a test over everything we've learned about this specific civilization, like right now we're on Egypt, and then on to the next. It just pisses me off, why can't she spend more time teaching us and less time showing us a waste of time educational show about what you should be teaching us but it comes out too fast and isn't as it is on the test and ugh. I'm going off here, I'm sorry. Although she is a funny teacher, she has ADD so when it started to briefly snow last week she was like "OH SHITZ" and the whole class ran outside for 3 minutes. She also get distracted by birds going to hew bird feeder. Wait, I can't end it here, I forgot to mention how it makes no sence to me that by being smart in the workings of American Goverment and memorizing a few amendments and what the branches do, does not translate well enough to me being smart in World history >1500 to make any sence, but you don't really care, do you? well I suppose you're still reading.. where did I put that ende parenthesis? Oh right,)

I don't have a television, and haven't regularly watched tv for several years.

That being said, back when I got a lot less done in a day, I would usually have the History channel on. Not necessarily to learn, or be educated, but just because it had the highest chances of showing something interesting at any given time.

Odds were good that any show that came on, whatever I was trying to do at the time, I'd pay attention to the opening of the show, and if it sounded neat, whether for the educational or the sensational, I'd pay more attention to it, for that hour.

So it was never really an educational outlet to begin with, for me. As has been said, if I wanted to learn about something, I have the internet, and various library and encyclopedic resources.

So History channel, and others, have pretty much always been the pop science and history answer to the actual stuff.

Like reading Discover magazine, or Scientific American, instead of JAMA, or Science, orother peer reviewed magazines.

As for their decline and downfall, I dunno. After each show, they plug buying the videos, for the show you just watched. I'm pretty sure all the ufo nuts make sure to buy more of those kind of videos than anyone else buys of any other genre, so they've become the loudest group, when it comes to the channel planning programming that will sell.

The only educational type of shows I watch are Cooking shows... Since Food Network Canada stopped airing Emeril, all I can say is that the quality has increased, not decreased :p

I stopped watching educational television when I was about 15-17ish. I loved Beakman's World (Sooo much better than Bill Nye) and Square One. That's not to say I don't enjoy a good documentary from time to time. Discovery's gotten kind of hokey, but being the geek I am, I think things like the documentary of Dragons was kind of cool. I know they're not real but going into the theoretical of how they could fly or breath fire is fun. 

Well, there are TWO different History channels: the regular History Channel, and there's a History International Channel with DirecTV (not sure about any other provider, as Direc is the one I have). The biggest thing is, a lot of the shows aren't even about history.

Anyway, most of the "history" on the channel is gone or has moved to the History International channel. I mean, I watch the History channel for 3 specific shows: Pawn Stars, American Restoration, and American Pickers. These shows are humorous and at the same time informative, which I believe is what makes learning better. Even though they don't talk about super important events or whatever (like Hitler and WWII, which History International seems to have on 24/7), they talk about the small things from America's past culture.

I mean, school teachers pretty much tell you everything about the world from the years 4000 BC to the present anyway, and I think History channel just goes more in depth. I remember spending a month learning about and researching about Hitler and World War 2 back in 2009, and I couldn't refer to the regular History channel because of all the non-historical shows on the channel (I didn't have DirecTV then), which leads me to my next point.

Many current shows on the History channel aren't even about History. I can tell you some my moronic little brother watches: Ax Men, Deadliest Roads, Ice Road Truckers, Only in America w/ Larry the Cable Guy, Swamp People, Stan Lee's Superhumans, Top Gear, and Top Shot, which, if you watch one episode of any of them, you'll realize there is virtually no history taught in these shows. My older brother calls the channel "The Redneck Channel" because of its terrible shows.

Well, that's just my take on educational TV. Most of the educational TV programs are designed for kids anyway, from ages 0-8 or whatever (loved Blue's Clues on Nick Jr., hated Sesame Street because I found it unappealing) and I actually learned quite a bit from it. But yeah, if I want to learn something, Wikipedia is my #1 spot.

..sounds like the History International Channel is what VH-1 used to be to MTV. I wonder how long it'll be be before HIC too goes the way the original then....Sigh... -___-

"I mean, school teachers pretty much tell you everything about the world from the years 4000 BC to the present anyway"-- I wish that were true. It depends on what school, and where you are in this country. A lot of schools....don't do that good of a job anymore...And don't even get me started on colleges.... Sigh...I'm not saying no one teaches anything, or teaches anything right, so don't misunderstand.

But despite that, eh, there's still nothing wrong with what the History Channel used to be, in presenting more educational material about history. They....just don't do that so much anymore! D:

You could easily have gotten Heroes of Might and Magic 6 at almost any GameStop if you preordered it. Someone preordered at mine and so my store ended up with 6 copies. Or you could have gone to Fry's; they'll always have PC games.

I didn't really agree with some of your assessments in the last show, or have some things to say about them.

You want Transfarring. :-P I even mentioned it, jokingly. I guess you didn't know what I was talking about/hadn't heard about it. But really, IMO the idea of transfarring is silly for most games because playing on a mobile device CAN'T be the same as playing at home. Having a large screen DOES change the experience. You mentioned the Kinect as being an awesome evolution of home consoles (which I find curious because there really aren't many good games for it, which is what you poopooed the 3DS launch for -  actually I can probably name more 3DS launch titles I am interested in than Kinect games). Do you want to play Kinect games on the go? Do you want to play motion controls on the go? Do you want to play horror games on the go? You think you're gonna jump out of your chair because some microscopic zombie jumps out at you on a tiny screen? The fact is that there some feelings that are hard to evoke on a small screen, and there are MANY types of games that really can't be played on the go.

Alos, you've given up on home console/PC entertainment evolving in order to say that handheld gaming should be the same as it. From what I hear, holograms are becoming more practical and many entertainment businesses are getting ready for that instead of 3D. What about "virtual reality?" It failed in the 90s because the technology and culture weren't ready for it. But it could make a comeback. What about truer motion controls/sensing? What about head tracking? What about the ability to read a players' emotions/general thoughts (and I can point you to a few technologies that aren't too expensive that do this pretty well)? What about things I haven't thought of, or nobody has? The fact is, you've given up on what makes each device type special and what they can become by saying they'll become the same.

Another big question that I think you could have mentioned (and I should have) is this: Will casual mobile players even WANT more games after they are satisfied? Handheld gamers will get Mario Land 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. into perpetuity. If you're only playing for a few minutes at a time, and you already have 20 $2 games, wouldn't you have a big enough variety on your mobile device? Do you really need to buy anything else, if all you want is a casual, shallow experience? If not, then the value of each casual gamer is overstated.

I owned a DS "phat." I got it at launch. It's the exact same thing as the DS Lite. The DS Lite just looks different, has a slightly brighter screen, and a slightly longer battery life. In fact, I prefer the DS "phat" because of its controls and the fact that GBA games don't hang out of the slot when plugged in. The reason the DS Lite succeeded is because the design was more approachable for girls/old people/etc. AND they had a new generation of casual games coming out at that time. Also, the DS "phat" was below your age level, but you're playing Angry Birds on your smart phone? Kirby's Canvas Curse, Mario 64, Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime, and Castlevania: Dual Sorrows are for a younger audience than Bejeweled, Luxor, Plants vs Zombies, and Angry Birds? That's news to me.

"Nintendo doesn't innovate" seems to be something you were saying during the episode. Nintendo didn't have to experiment with the DS; the GBA was plenty successful as it was. There are a lot of things you take for granted now that Nintendo had to innovate for in the past. Did they innovate much between the GB and GBA? Not really. Does that mean they don't innovate as a whole, or even in the handheld market? I don't think that's fair to say. I'd say adding 3D and augmented reality is a decent amount of innovation for a system, wouldn't you? How did the Vita innovate? A touch screen on the back? Uhhh... How do phones innovate? Glowier buttons?

Also, your fangasming over cell phones isn't indicative of the market as a whole. Who CARES if a phone is quad-core instead of dual-core? Can you think of any use for that extra power? There are no good games that use it, there aren't any resource-intensive applications, web browsing is limited more by its interface than anything else, and you don't have enough freedom on most phones to blaze your own trail of utility. So what's the point? Besides that, you're harping on Nintendo for not innovating, but salivating over phones simpy getting hardware upgrades? In what way are these phones innovating?

I see your prediction as possible and likely for some kinds of games, but not optimal for almost any kind of game. I'll play my Witcher, Mass Effect, etc. at home instead of on a 2.5" LCD screen and tinny little speakers. Or are you willing to be in a public subway, or driving, or whatever with virtual reality goggles on and a noise-cancelling headset? Hope you don't get mugged...

===================

Sorry for going on that long, I had just made a list as I was going through the video. As for the History Channel, I don't watch TV at all now. But yes, it has degraded. The truth is, though, that most of that was already present at the channel's inception and has only expanded. The funny thing is that if you know ANYTHING about the subject they are talking about, their conspiracy theories/aliens/etc. are almost always the least likely thing imaginable. It's the kind of thing that someone educated on the subject would never, ever say. So the History Channel is really more of a mis-information channel now. Now these conspiracy theories/aliens/etc. stories are fun sometimes in a cheesy way, but they're presented as fact and it's this kind of BS that has led to a lot of people... being stupid about things. I see people online often whose viewpoints have obviously been corrupted by this pseudo-intellectual bullshit. The History Channel is a tabloid.

I do like biographies and things that are on TV some times, but I really have no definitive source. I also try to keep perspective on things - consider the source as it were.

Although science exists in things like Myth Busters for example, they're hardly A+ authorities on physics. In the same way I don't go to the siphilus channel (SyFy) for my science education.

Typically, if I hear something of interest, I'll do a "Quick wiki" to find out more on the topic. If it really interests me, then I do a more detailed google search, and if it goes beyond that, I will go to the library for books on the subject, or track down books that were cited as sources for info on a topic.

This is pretty well a universal approach to me for any subject: History, cooking, art, literature, games, etc. Sometimes I will alter the order though.

I think Memoirs of a Geisha is an interesting one for me. It started with your question about John Williams scores, which led me to the soundtrack, so I borrowed the movie from a friend. I had this idea Geisha = something like a prostitute. Whether true or not, I did a "quick wiki" on the term Geisha and its historical values, the novel and even controversies surrounding it. I eventually picked up the book, and currently I'm doing more research on Geisha: What their specific role in Japanese society was, what it is now, and what it isn't.

It's not like I haven't seen things about Japan on TV like the Travel Channel, History and even local public broadcasting. But despite my interest in Japan, I never decided to look into it before.

*As an aside note I tend to regard wiki entries differently based on what subject I'm on. In terms of politics and religion there is always going to  be bias mixed in one way or another, and to an extent, history and other things as well. I tend to take wiki more seriously on things like terms, definitions and locations. Info it has on games and media also has to be taken with a grain of salt some times, as release dates may not be updated as avidly as a gaming forum for example.

I suppose the short answer is no, I don't watch History Channel unless there's something on that interests me, and that's not always my source of learning. And seriously, I tend to get a lot of pulls from outside sources making me alert to one thing or another. XD Ahh this has been a pointless ramble.

Hi love your show I am longtime listener first time commenting,

I think that the history channel is like everything else that has been happening to the world this century and that is transients.

Everything that you want to know can look for on the web. You want information on the history of Ancient  Greece just google it, if you want more information just buy a book or ebook on amazon, video of the topic go youtube or a web site that you can pay for video documentaries and online studies.

The history channel is trying to get viewers and so are trying different means to get anyone, unfortunately i feel the message is no longer positivity and is sometimes one sided. Shows like  Nostradamus Effect and Life After People and the 2012 Documentaries are good at times but are not what they used to be. They sometimes make you feel down and powerless.

I love some of their older shows like Decisive Battles, Battles BC, battle of long tan, battle line, some of the WW2 shows, and some of the Rome shows. Much better than monster quest. I guess also like to get other side of view espically when talking about WW2 somethings it is good not alway listern to a pro allied side and read other views on the subject.

Just thinking about this week about moblie gaming and one thing i have to say that has not been said and that is battery life. Battery technology is only improving slowly and the technology of moblies has been going fast the one thing you see is that phone don't last long if you are playing something requiring a lot of power. That is why games such as angry birds are great for moblie but god of war? You need a bigger phone to power for longer, the next gameboys and psps will not have the problem of trying to do too much as phones need to, and can put more power  in focusing on just the game. I could be wrong but you right when you say it will be replace but 5 years?

If anything is going to replace them it is ipads and other tablets, bigger screen, a lot more room for battery power and some can and do have options for keyboard and mouse. It make more sense to play the more power draining games on them instead.

Thank you again

Knightcrawler: +1 on your handheld/mobile thoughts! I agree with everything you wrote there!

I also think I found a way to summarize my thoughts about this week's topic.

"... it's time to ask a question about geeky TV in 2011."

Answer: It's not geeky enough.

And I can connect this to gaming in a weird way as well... Educating TV shows are like Angry Birds, they're quick, easily accessible, entertaining, and (often) a bit shallow. Many people watch it, get some general knowledge about a subject, many "non geeks" watch because it's accessible, and a few "geeks" watch it because they want to know about stuff. (Learning for the sake of learning).

And one of the alternatives, the geeky variant, Google and Wiki, are like... say, Final Fantasy, Zelda, Resistance... Easily accessible as well, but a little bit heavier on content, more in depth... many more geeks use it, and also a few non geeks do as well.

The geekiest alternative, which is very much alike my simile: Textbooks... which are like D&D, pen and paper roleplaying... Geeky as hell, and often very niched into a specific subject within a subject... (Almost) only the geekiest uses this form to get the most out of a subject.

Bringing this all back into the previous question, where we compare Mobile gaming with handheld gaming... yes they might be two species of the same animal... but there is a market for both.
Because eduTV is popular, "casual", and easily accessible, should textbooks and libraries dissapear? No, textbooks will always have it's crowd, and I think it's the same for Handheld gaming. 

There was a time when History was my favorite T.V. channel (I rembember the time I was extremely unnerved by the 2012 theories displayed on the the show that i didn't talk for 24 hours).  But as I noticed the downward trend it was going in, reality shows and what-not i became less and less interested.  Of course im a huge fan of conspiracy theories, so that was the only thing keeping me interested, but even that stopped being worth my time.

I don't really find any other edutainment channel too interesting, except for the occational documentary on NatGeo or PBS.  I kind of atribute my decreasing interest in educational T.V. to this.  Of course there is the occational bright spot like America: the Story of Us, but it's just not the same as it was before.

But, since not much else is better, History is were I go to get most of my documenaries and such. Kind of the least of all evils.