Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Oldest Submerged City Visualized With CGI

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the what's-old-is-new dept.

Science 84

Stirling Newberry writes "Nottingham University's Pavlopetri project spent months measuring a city that sank beneath the waves 3,000 years ago, perhaps in a tsunami. The result is a BBC documentary that features a detailed CGI reconstruction. 'The entire city – covering 20 acres – has been surveyed in ultra-high definition, with error margins of less than three centimeters. ... [T]he survey team has so far located scores of buildings, half a dozen major streets and even religious shrines and tombs.' eScience News chimes in about the oldest known submerged city, first inhabited 5,000 years ago and rediscovered in 1967. Of course, Slashdot readers will probably want to dig into the details of how stereo-vision mapping was used (PDF) to create the map in the first place."

cancel ×

84 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Where is the visualization? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37644286)

I just want to see the pictures.

Re:Where is the visualization? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37644290)

THIS.

Re:Where is the visualization? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37644302)

EXACTLY

Re:Where is the visualization? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37644354)

Video sequence from oldest sunken city:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOHJUrcVdJk [youtube.com]

Re:Where A MAP? (1)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644668)

I just want to see the pictures.

I can do without their new fangled CGI, I just want to see a layout of the town. If it's been of known since 1967 surely there's a map, however crude, of it out there.

Re:Where A MAP? (3, Insightful)

mikael (484) | more than 2 years ago | (#37645566)

A submerged city would have be covered with sediment, coral and fauna. A 1970's archeological survey map simplified for audiences would consist of some black squiggly lines superimposed over a blurry underwater photograph, providing conclusive proof that the structure was man-made.

Re:Where A MAP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37648626)

I just want to see the pictures.

I can do without their new fangled CGI, I just want to see a layout of the town. If it's been of known since 1967 surely there's a map, however crude, of it out there.

Map: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/pavlopetri/images-multimedia/page21968plan.jpg

Re:Where is the visualization? (2)

Kulfaangaren! (1294552) | more than 2 years ago | (#37645372)

Only available in the UK, BBC documentary. Luckily I have a UK VPN connection :) The visualization results were not very impressive though the brick-by-brick build-up of the virtual houses was interesting to watch.

Re:Where is the visualization? (1)

Kaetemi (928767) | more than 2 years ago | (#37646790)

Where's the 3d mesh & texture data?

Uhm... (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644296)

Maybe I'm wrong, but ISTM that a tsunami would only submerge a city temporarily. To stay under for 3000 years you need rising sea, sinking ground, or perhaps a sea breaking into a previously dry area below sea level.

Re:Uhm... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644338)

That was my thought. Most likely it's a similar phenomenon where a plate will suddenly drop leaving whatever it is substantially lower than before the quake. I'm not sure what the proper term for that is. A tsunami is caused by a temporary drop in the sea floor, if the ocean floor didn't rise again after dropping you wouldn't get the characteristic wave.

Re:Uhm... (2)

maxwells_deamon (221474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644906)

A Tsunami can be caused by any sudden change in the sea floor level. (other causes are also possible) The ocean rushes in to level things out (fill in the hole) and the momentum of that rushing movement causes the surge.

Fill a bucket with water in a swimming pool starting with the top of the bucket level with the water. Try to yank it out quickly it without a wave propagating and you will see the problem. There were probably tsunamis at the same time as the quakes that lowered the water levels. The waves themselves did not cause the prolonged flooding.

See this link. http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/tsunami/sumatra05/subsidence.html [usgs.gov] Also similar effects happened in Japan in March.

Re:Uhm... (1)

jgoemat (565882) | more than 2 years ago | (#37651944)

if the ocean floor didn't rise again after dropping you wouldn't get the characteristic wave.

Why not? After the slip occurs, what force would move it back to where it was before?

Prime mortages (4, Funny)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644356)

Clearly submerged mortages sunk the housing market and all assets were lost when liquidity flooded the market.

Re:Uhm... (3, Funny)

RDW (41497) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644378)

To stay under for 3000 years you need rising sea, sinking ground, or perhaps a sea breaking into a previously dry area below sea level.

...or non-Euclidean geometry loathsomely redolent of spheres and dimensions apart from ours.

Re:Uhm... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37644416)

....wat

Re:Uhm... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37644500)

...or non-Euclidean geometry loathsomely redolent of spheres and dimensions apart from ours.

....wat

As a wise* man once said "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn".

*YMMV

Re:Uhm... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37644512)

To stay under for 3000 years you need rising sea, sinking ground, or perhaps a sea breaking into a previously dry area below sea level.

...or non-Euclidean geometry loathsomely redolent of spheres and dimensions apart from ours.

O r'lyeh?

Re:Uhm... (1)

thunderclap (972782) | more than 2 years ago | (#37646546)

actually I think it would be 'non-Euclidean geometry gleefully redolent of quantum spheres and multiple dimensions apart from ours'

Re:Uhm... (2)

mspohr (589790) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644758)

You are right. The summary is wrong. If you read the linked articles they say it was sunk by a series of earthquakes that caused that area so sink.

Re:Uhm... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37645190)

The summary is wrong.

And this surprises you?

Rising Sea level is proof of Middle Earth Theory. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37644790)

All the continents were connected, because the Earth had a solid core and was much smaller. This planet was nothing more than a solid rock out in space, then something terraformed it to something more. What happened in Theory was two-fold: some event caused the Earth to grow a hollow core to arrive a process of generating geo-thermal energy while expanding the surface for the land to continentally isolate itself, and the second was that water was used to cover the surface ravines that divided the land into continents.

This is a verry sound theory voiced by some otherwise oddball supporters, but it explains more than anything else because organized Science today simply presents the existance of civilization on this planet as being forever in delicate infancy rather than led by an overwhelming intelligent alien power whether you call them Grey's or the God-logic.

One matter is a fact, and that you can determine the age of a civilization by it's sea coast: everyone says Africa is the origin of man-kind through selective breeding apes into more intelligent creatures of varying appeal, but when you compare their coast line then you see the facts of Charles Darwin present itself that animals just simply don't motivate theirselves to the cause of a higher mode of conduct all by theirselves, while if you look at the coastline around india then you'll know that no matter what theory is presented about Africa being a cradle of civilization then it all falls apart. I haven't even explained what I mean about "the coastline" so I'll rebute the Slashdot article: I refer to the coastline as that continentally split ravine covered by water, that proves Middle Earth theory is a fact, because underwater all around India there are covered temples and lifestyle structures thousands of feet below the surface while Africa has absolutely nothing underwater thus proving it to be nothing more than a backwoods savage jungle of apes. To compare the scale of civilization on India is like envisioning Yosemite National Park being the beach front property and everything below the mountain in terms of building infrastructure is all submerged: you dive down the coastline of Yosemite and you see Walmart underwater and can only ponder all the other sunken square buildings might have been other worship temples. Then you hear some neighbor of yours say that Compton is the oldest living civilization and you just keep looking around Orange County finding more evidence that there are more intelligent and older civilizations in the non-incorporated towns that don't have a city, but the loud-mouths continually say Compton is the cradle of all civilization and despite you reasoning otherwise is when you see the Compton-supporters get the government grant to prove/manufacture more evidence against otherwise and you simply can't yell louder than the Great Apes that threaten to cut you (out of the picture me thinks) if you culturally and phorensically prove anything otherwise.

That's what it's like arguing anything with organized Science: it's like they are introducing racism to the equation and everything else just to supplant facts with anecdotal lies for purposes of harmonizing the class-warfare gaps present in the demographics of societies. Everyday watching the News is like watching Transformers 3: where we are expected to allow government propositions of opinion and lifestyle present itself as though it's the superior science fiction that Astroturfs against actual Theories and Principals that does more to insult the gentele and cultured people that are productive. Then we get pitted against Apes.

Re:Rising Sea level is proof of Middle Earth Theor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37646264)

Step away from the crack pipe.

I layed pipe into your mom's crack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37646484)

and after 9 months of holding my smegma in her womb, you arrived.

Re:Uhm... (1)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644838)

RC Flemming, the discoverer of the city, suggests that there are signs of a geological event around 1000 BC in that area where the result was a tsunami and a lowering of the coastal areas as part of the same geologic event. The original submission had a link to the journal article which went into greater detail how this combination may have sunk this, and other, cities from the period.

Re:Uhm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37645890)

parts of japan sank permanently something like 3 meters.

Re:Uhm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37648416)

Fulfilling the prophecy that Major portions of Japan would sink into the Ocean as foretold by Edgar Cayce. Now we just need Antichrist Obama to do his part and the planet Nibiru to arrive and we'll be well on schedule for Mayan New Cycle!

Re:Uhm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37646364)

You're right. But in this case we are dealing with times of Ice Age recovery, when large continental glaciers continued to melt, raising the sea level. It doesn't contradict with tsunami theory - large waves may be responcible for the initial destruction of the settlement, but later advancing sea slowly covered it with water.

Re:Uhm... (1)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 2 years ago | (#37653386)

Sea levels rising for cyclical climatological reasons (ie long before Republicans driving SUVs) ruins the narrative. Ergo, tsunami "must have done it".

Re:Uhm... (1)

microcuts (1991026) | more than 2 years ago | (#37657406)

Perhaps you are

In Before... (0)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644316)

Someone suggests its Atlantis. Atlantis never existed. It was a rhetorical device.

Wrong! (1, Funny)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644394)

Of *course* Atlantis existed. Atlanteans are the primary genetic source of the genes predisposing people to believe in conspiracy theories. All of the fine, upstanding men and women who believe in the Illuminati, UFOs, and Lizard Elvis owe their life obsessions to the brave few who escaped that grand City Upon the Sea.

Re:In Before... (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644418)

Someone suggests its Atlantis. Atlantis never existed. It was a rhetorical device.

But it usually gets "discovered" every six months or so, and unless I haven't been following the news closely enough, we're overdue. So we may have to let this one in just to avoid a statistical fluke.

Re:In Before... (4, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644428)

People used to think the same thing about Troy. Then some German guy found it in the late 1800s.

Of course, the real Troy wasn't nearly as large as what Homer's story would have you believe, and there's no evidence of involvement by deities, but the city is real. Similarly, Atlantis, if it exists at all, probably doesn't have any advanced technology like flying machines and the like, but there could very well be a real city somewhere that used to be called Atlantis. After all, this currently unnamed city was once above sea level, and then some earthquakes happened causing the land to subside, and the city sunk; people back then probably assumed it was "the work of the gods".

Re:In Before... (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644504)

"[...]a mighty host, which, starting from a distant point in the Atlantic ocean, was insolently advancing to attack the whole of Europe, and Asia to boot. [...] there lay an island which was larger than Libya and Asia together; and it was possible for the travelers of that time to cross from it to the other islands, and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses that veritable ocean. [...]Now in this island of Atlantis there existed a confederation of kings, of great and marvelous power, which held sway over all the island, and over many other islands also and parts of the continent."

Someone is going to be VERY disappointed.

Re:In Before... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644614)

Well we can see from Homer's telling of the Trojan War that we wasn't particularly accurate with details. In fact, I've been told that our modern obsession with realism and literal truth is actually a fairly recent development; back then, people didn't care for "true stories", they liked them embellished far beyond the limits of reality. Of course, while today we claim to like realism, looking at the way basic physics is handled in any Hollywood movie shows that we're all liars, unless you really believe that a gunshot will make a person fly backwards several yards.

Re:In Before... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644812)

In fact, I've been told that our modern obsession with realism and literal truth is actually a fairly recent development; back then, people didn't care for "true stories", they liked them embellished far beyond the limits of reality.

An important key to understanding Greek and Roman literature is that when an author reports a speech by a famous person, they aren't making the least effort to recount what was actually said; rather, they are constructing what they thought the person ought to have said on the occasion.

Re:In Before... (1)

Greystripe (1985692) | more than 2 years ago | (#37645474)

Oh so about what you get from the news reporters of today.

Re:In Before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37644580)

Of course, the real Troy wasn't nearly as large as what Homer's story would have you believe

Then again, maybe you and Schleimann have it backwards: you're trying to fit an existing city into the story of the Iliad. Others have started with the info stated in the Iliad and searched for Troy, one person placing it in Cambridge, England (http://www.troy-in-england.co.uk/ [troy-in-england.co.uk] ) and another placing it in the Baltic. If you've ever read the Iliad and Odyssey and followed along with a map, the Aegean location just doesn't make any sense.

Re:In Before... (3, Interesting)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644678)

You're trying to inject realism into a story where there was little, and exaggeration was normal. This isn't confined to the Greeks, just look at any Hollywood movie; there's no realism there. The "true stories" of Troy are probably rather dull: there was some stupid diplomatic gaffe (nothing as romantic as a stolen love), some sociopathic king got pissed and declared war, took a couple dozen ships and crossed the Aegean, and invaded some small town. The town's defenses helped for a short time, but were fairly quickly overcome with a battering ram or similar. King sacks city, survivors flee, end of story. Who wants to read a story about that, when they can read about a beautiful woman being taken by a foolish prince to his grandiose city, the other King angrily assembling a fleet of thousands of ships and traveling a great distance, then a great war being fought between tens of thousands of soldiers, and finally the King conquering the city through clever subterfuge, plus some stuff about various gods and super-warriors being thrown in for good measure?

Re:In Before... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644694)

For a modern-day parallel, watch any Hollywood movie that's "inspired by a true story", or heck, even those claiming to be "based on a true story".

Re:In Before... (4, Interesting)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644638)

And then that guy proceeded to utterly ruin the city, smashing through all the upper layers without even pretending to analyze or catalogue them in search of the gold or whatever he expected to find at the bottom.

I forget the exact details, but I know he trashed damn near 90% of the place; even by the looser standards of the 1800's he was a reckless, arrogant fuck. His own partner castigated him for his methods. It must have been inspirational for archeologists I suppose, to know that great things were still out there, but it quickly became one of the bigger archeological tragedies man has ever witnessed.

Re:In Before... (2)

supercrisp (936036) | more than 2 years ago | (#37645066)

If you think Schliemann was bad, you should check out what Evans did to Knossos. He didn't just dig right through all the previous layers with wild abandon, he plastered over and repainted what he found until it was a sort of Disney recreation.

Re:In Before... (1)

blue trane (110704) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652674)

Consider what the British did to Indus Valley civilization cities:

British engineers John and William Brunton were laying the East Indian Railway Company line connecting the cities of Karachi and Lahore. John wrote: "I was much exercised in my mind how we were to get ballast for the line of the railway." They were told of an ancient ruined city near the lines, called Brahminabad. Visiting the city, he found it full of hard well-burnt bricks, and "convinced that there was a grand quarry for the ballast I wanted," the city of Brahminabad was reduced to ballast.[15] A few months later, further north, John's brother William Brunton's "section of the line ran near another ruined city, bricks from which had already been used by villagers in the nearby village of Harappa at the same site. These bricks now provided ballast along 93 miles (150 km) of the railroad track running from Karachi to Lahore."[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization#Discovery_and_excavation [wikipedia.org]

Re:In Before... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644768)

People used to think the same thing about Troy.

I don't think that's actually true. We've always had lots of Roman references to the historical city of Ilium on the site (Roman version of Greek Ilion, source of the epic's title Iliad), with what was always thought to be Achilles' tomb nearby. We've always had references to the fact that Alexander visited the tomb during historical times and swapped his shield for the one on display there. And we have a Fifth Century CE (IIRC) travelogue where a guy reports visiting the site and being astonished to find that the Eternal Flame was still burning at the tomb - learning on investigation that it was maintained by the local Christian bishop.

Western Europe lost most of their contact with Greek and Roman literature for the better part of a millenium when germanic barbarians overran the western half of the empire, but the East Roman (Byzantine) empire wasn't squelched until 1453. And by then western Europe was starting to reacquaint itself with the literature.

Perhaps Schliemann faced skeptics, but we ought to make a distinction between a "lost" city and a city that was believed to have been mythical. We've found lots of cities in Western Asia that had been lost for several thousand years, but that doesn't mean nobody believed they existed. In fact, IIRC there are still a few that we know existed but haven't found yet.

Re:In Before... (2)

C0R1D4N (970153) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644442)

It's not exactly far-fetched to say the story was based on an actual city that sank into the sea (*cough* Akrotiri *cough*). After all, modern story-tellers use historical events to make political points all the damn time.

Re:In Before... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37644492)

After all, modern story-tellers use historical events to make political points all the damn time.

That sounds like something Hitler would say.

Re:In Before... (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644872)

It's not exactly far-fetched to say the story was based on an actual city that sank into the sea (*cough* Akrotiri *cough*). After all, modern story-tellers use historical events to make political points all the damn time.

Perhaps it was, though if so it was more likely based on the famous circular harbor at Carthage than on Thera.

But Plato introduces it in a fictional account of a dinner party where one of the characters reports that a friend of a friend of ... (insert 7-8 removes) heard it from an Egyptian priest. We know that these stories of Plato, called Dramatic Dialogues, are just fictions to let him insert his opinions into the mouth of Socrates. So maybe he did drop in some common (or esoteric) knowledge about an ancient city - he does mention real cities - but there's absolutely no reason to suppose that he was doing so in the case of Atlantis. And there certainly weren't any Athenians around 7000 years earlier to fight these hypothetical Atlanteans.

Face it: he made up a story to make a point, and one facet of the story has caught the popular imagination. But almost no one who fancies that facet has the least idea where it came from, nor what else was in the story, nor why it was being told. Belief in Atlantis is the triumph of ignorance and wishful thinking over education, comprehension, and the expectation that claims should be supported by evidence.

Re:In Before... (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 2 years ago | (#37646378)

"Atlantis never existed."

Next you'll be saying that Discovery and Endeavour never existed, (or Challenger and Columbia)

Anyway one of the theories of the origin of the legend of Atlantis is that it recalls the Thera eruption which destroyed the Minoan civilistation around 1500 BC which was before 3000 years ago making that (the remnants of the Minoan city around Santorini) the oldest submerged city., or at least older than the one mentioned in the article. There are probably older sunken cities around, either that we haven't found yet or that have been found but we don't know how old.

I still reckon Atlantis was the best of the Stargate series, mainly because of Dr Rodney Mcay

Re:In Before... (1)

thunderclap (972782) | more than 2 years ago | (#37646548)

So was Troy until it was excavated.

Re:In Before... (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 2 years ago | (#37648936)

Atlantis never existed. It was a rhetorical device.

So was Troy, until someone dug it out.

Also (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37644426)

I don't know which link the story is

I am sorely disappointed (0)

GammaKitsune (826576) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644462)

The title lead me to believe that the Nightmare Corpse-City of R'lyeh had finally been brought to light through the use of your pitiful mortal computer-machines. You got my entire Eldritch Order excited for nothing, Slashdot. May the tainted stars blast you.

Re:I am sorely disappointed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37650950)

Are you high?

Jaded by SciFi (0)

Powercntrl (458442) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644532)

They didn't find a Stargate? Move along, nothing to see here.

Re:Jaded by SciFi (0)

Greystripe (1985692) | more than 2 years ago | (#37645478)

If they did do you really think they'd tell anyone?

Now if I could find the bastard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37646156)

...who modded this "offtopic", I'd tie him to a chair, duct tape his eyelids open and make him watch this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0426236/ [imdb.com]

50 times over.

Not available in your Area... (3, Informative)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644534)

Tried to view the video on the BBC site. Says "not available in your area".
The irony is that I am in Greece...
Thanks BBC.

Re:Not available in your Area... (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644828)

WhyTF does the BBC do this?

Re:Not available in your Area... (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 2 years ago | (#37644990)

WhyTF does the BBC do this?

So they can get paid at least twice for the TV show. Once from the Licence Fee (legally required of all UK citizens with a TV set), and then once more when they show it on BBC America, and then again when they sell it internationally.

It's a nice racket, a nice way of earning money. No risk, no pressure to return on it.

This also being the reason why they just got their budget cut by government, and had to fire 2000 staff (a very small percentage).

Re:Not available in your Area... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37646686)

We're talking about the trailer here.

Re:Not available in your Area... (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#37646880)

(legally required of all UK citizens with a TV set)

Uh, no. You do *not* need a TV licence in the UK to own a television. You need it to watch off-air programming. Why you'd bother with that when things like bittorrent and really fast broadband exist, I don't know.

Re:Not available in your Area... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37651704)

Uh, no. You do *not* need a TV licence in the UK to own a television.

I bleedin' well do, and I got one! ...can't be called out there.

Wait... this is a radio license with the word 'radio' crossed out, and 'telly' written in in crayon!

Re:Not available in your Area... (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#37652740)

I don't have one, and haven't ever had one. Never needed one, either, since I don't have an aerial or cable.

Re:Not available in your Area... (1)

DaveGod (703167) | more than 2 years ago | (#37648398)

The BBC cannot make a profit, due to the not-for-profit charter of the organisation it can only make periodic surpluses or deficits - over the long term they can only net off to nil. Any surplus generated on popular programmes is used to subsidise either/both the licence fee and/or unpopular but "culturally significant" or whatever programmes.

I'm not really sure you have a solid grasp of the way media or any other duplicable asset is sold. Making a sale in many different ways is not the same as "being paid at least twice". Let's say a commercially successful programme like Planet Earth costs £10m to produce, maybe it makes £3m from DVD sales, £1m from BBC America and £3m from deals with other broadcasters. The remaining £3m then comes from the licence fee pot. Maybe another series is so widely successful that it made £20m from those other sources: £10m would go into the licence fee pot, subsidising the licence fee and/or other programmes.

"They can get paid at least twice" just doesn't have any meaning. I watched Inception at the cinema with 5 friends. Did Warner get paid 6 times? Another friend bought the DVD, still another bought the Bluray. Are Warner getting paid 8 times over just between my social circle? Or is it 3? What if myself and 2 of my cinema-going friends also bought the Bluray? What if the BBC then pays to broadcast the movie? Does it matter that all of us pay the licence fee, but some of us live in shared housing and split the bill? Is it relevant that Warner arguably financed the movie from the proceeds of The Dark Knight? Many of my circle bought that in various ways too. Pretty sure the sum total of all our expenditure never covers the $160m cost, though admittedly one friend is quite well off and might have bought a special edition.

To clarify, the BBC did not have their budget cut by government as some sort of punishment for making international sales, or any reason connected with international sales. They were not allowed to increase the licence fee (allowing for inflation this is a cut) in order to cut costs for the licence-paying public. This is set out in the BBC's proposal Delivering Quality First [bbc.co.uk] , and many BBC and government announcements widely covered by various media. Some people argue the Tory government not liking the BBC played it's part, or the lobbying from competitors such as Murdoch, but that's conjecture and regardless still has nothing to do with international sales. Cutting the licence fee serves to increase the motivation to make international sales, in order to offset the reduction in the licence fee pot.

The 2,000 staff cut is out of a total of 18,000 [scotsman.com] . Although "a very small percentage" is subjective, 11% can be in your very small opinion, but personally I'm not convinced it is an appropriate turn of phrase when describing people losing their jobs. For the avoidance of doubt I note that the 18,000 figure excludes contractors, which is appropriate because the 2,000 also excludes people losing their contracts.

You are not required to pay the TV licence to own a TV, only to watch broadcast TV (which does include recorded TV on VCR or computer, more info if required [tvlicensing.co.uk] ).

Re:Not available in your Area... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37645592)

Because in the UK we pay a licence fee that funds the BBC's work. It wouldn't exactly be fair if you non-Brits got to see it for free now, would it?

Re:Not available in your Area... (1)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37650136)

Same reason ABC and NBC does it to people who dont live in the US. Because those people wont buy the stuff the commercials are selling so there's no point in spending money on the bandwidth.

Re:Not available in your Area... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37644908)

The video is not available on the west coast of the U.S. either.
That's really lame.

Re:Not available in your Area... (1)

supercrisp (936036) | more than 2 years ago | (#37645070)

I hear they have some marbles they won't let you have back either.

Re:Not available in your Area... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37645246)

Tried to view the video on the BBC site. Says "not available in your area".
The irony is that I am in Greece...
Thanks BBC.

No telly if you don't pay the bill.

Use a proxy.

Re:Not available in your Area... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37646892)

Exactly use a proxy! When i used to watch Lost on ABC.com I couldnt go on becuase i was in the UK - I just used a US proxy and could then watch it fine

Re:Not available in your Area... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37645526)

Wow ... slash dot used to be full of people who would have already linked to a workaround for the problem, and all I hear the last few years is whining.

Truly sad to see the new generations are so helpless.

Re:Not available in your Area... (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#37645646)

So where's YOUR workaround genius?

Modern Homowners (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37644598)

Modern homeowners are familiar with entire communities being underwater.

Nothing new here.

There are a number of sunken cities in Greece... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37644742)

...Although they get surprisingly little publicity. There's a small city that vanished underwater in the 5th Century BC (I think), when an earthquake dropped a local valley and turned the mountains of Kalymnos and Telendos into islands.

Re:There are a number of sunken cities in Greece.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37646286)

Really? Cool. Where might one learn more about these events?

Send in ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#37645808)

... the Google Street View car.

Re:Send in ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37729276)

Google Street View submarine. :)

What's old is new again (1)

TheRealQuestor (1750940) | more than 2 years ago | (#37646148)

What strikes me as odd is how much they look like average modern Mexican buildings. And many here in South Texas. wow 3000 years ago.

mary renault... (1)

paai (162289) | more than 2 years ago | (#37646514)

Since nobody mentioned 'the king must die' as yet, I will.
Paai

None for you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37647130)

Bloody hell - "Not available in your area"! I gather that's anywhere outside Britain. Looks like it airs a couple times this week, starting Sunday night!
Guess I'll have to check Torrent sites later in the week and see if someone is willing to share it out beyond the British Isles ...

Not the oldest. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37647874)

India has an older submerged city.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1768109.stm

Oldest? (2)

Big Jez (89415) | more than 2 years ago | (#37648874)

What about the submerged city in the Gulf of Cambay, India? This is reported as being up to 9000 years old (possibly) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1768109.stm

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>