Slashdot Mirror

They had to figure out who in the MythBusters crew was susceptible to seasickness. Adam was a sure bet because of previous seasickness during the Jaws Special. Sure enough, Adam got quesy within 3 and half minutes on the chair. After a half an hour in the chair, Jamie was still fine. Kari and Tory were both fine as well. Grant became the final test subject. He lasted longer than Adam, but he got sick as well.

Remedy Testing

Homoepathic tongue tingler. They used a unnamed spray that you squirt under the tongue as often as needed. Grant was sick within 10 minutes and vomited some small chunks. Adam was sick within 4 minutes.
Wrist straps: They wore little gray wristbands that are 'Barry Manilow's choice.' Adam was sick within 90 seconds. Grant got sick as well. They've gotten pretty quick with bringing a bucket to Grant.
Ginger pills: It worked! Adam and Grant were both fine.
Small shocks on the P6 Accupunture point (on the wrist):Z Both Adam and Grant got sick.
Placebo: They told Grant and Adam they were getting an over-the-counter pharmaceutical remedy, but they actually gave them vitamins. Adam's reponse: "I hate this [bleeping] chair" after three and a half minutes. Grant: "This is among the most effective, if not the most effective."
Over-the-counter pharmaceutical drug: Worked on Adam and Grant, but it made them both a little loopy.

Only thing that worked without any side effects was the ginger pill.

Ginger pills: plausible

Quick'n'dirty translation:

###

Recent research shows your keyboard is more dirty than a toilet seat

(2006-01-18 09:20) Do you have some dirt between the keys on your keyboard? Spending a few bucks on a new keyboard might be a good idea. The latest issue of Pc för Alla shows that a keyboard can be a major source for contamination.

By Fredrik Agren

A keyboard holds about 33.000 bacteria per square centimeter - 265 times more than a toilet seat.

The computer magazine PC För Alla has examined what exactly is hiding on a keyboard. The task was assigned to Pegasus Lab, which discovered that every square centimeter contained 3.100 fungees.

Not surprisingly, Enter and Space Bar are the most filthy, as they are the keys we use more frequently.

There are many ways to keep your keyboard clean, but those afraid of catching the flu can follow a simple advice from Smittskyddinstitutets Kerstin Mannerquist:

- Wash your hands when you're done with the computer, she says to PC För Alla.

###

Anyway, remember the findings of Mythbusters?
In the episode Chinese Invasion Alarm episode, while busting the 5 second rule myth, they discovered that the toilet seat is one of the cleanest spots in your house.

Not only do they mark myths as "busted" and "confirmed", but they've been know to mark them as "plausible" on plenty of occassions. I think I've even seen "possible, not not plausible". This blog has a nice list of previous myths and their outcomes, some include plausible.

So to respond to your comment, I think the myth busters realize that and only mark a myth as busted or confirmed when its pretty much certain. Obviously they can't guarantee something will never happen or can't happen. There is probably some percentage of certainty that must be met for something to fall into a certain category.

But then again, its a show, primarily for entertainment purposes with alittle bit of science thrown in.

Ah, I see what you're getting at now.

IF cyan stimulates the red cones (it will, fractionally, as I doubt the red-sensitivity-curve will have hit 0 when it reaches cyan; the only question is by how much (*)), then even "genuine" cyan will be "impure".

Of course, this is rather misleading; if it's genuine single-wavelength cyan, then it can't be considered "impure". That's just the way the eye perceives pure cyan.

Assuming all this is true, what *you* are doing is something quite unusual; YOU ARE MAKING A "COLOUR" THAT COULD NOT EXIST IN REAL LIFE! No real colour would stimulate green and blue to that extent without stimulating the red sensors also (under normal circumstances), and this brings up some very interesting philosophical questions.

That having said, to be honest, the cyan I got from your simulation was vivid, certainly, but it didn't appear "artificially" bright. It may have been more vivid than fake 'green+blue' cyan for the reasons described above, but it didn't appear "more cyan than real cyan". Perhaps you *really* have to zap those red receptors, or perhaps (as I originally assumed), the red-receptor output is so negligible at cyan frequencies that reducing/omitting it makes no notable difference.

Still, all good stuff, and it could point the way to some very interesting experiments with synthetic colours.

Oh, and on a semi-related topic, check out these links, and search the text for "martian colors":-
One, Two.
Essentially, colour-blind subjects with synesthaesia who cannot perceive certain colours optically can still "experience" them as a result of their synesthaesia. In short, they can experience colours that they couldn't possibly see.

(*) Note that I say "to all intents and purposes" in my original post. I assume that the red receptors will still be minutely stimulated by (e.g.) blue light, but at an extremely low level which is insignificant.

It's really only a "death ray" if you're really really tiny. Mythbusters did a great job of blowing the myth apart, with a much larger mirror array arranged in a proper fresnel configuration. It douldn't set fire to much of anything, even when they put gasoline on the target.

Explosive decompression due to a handgun firing is a myth. Google Search. Google Groups Search.