Slashdot Mirror


MythBusters - Who Ya Gonna Call?

An anonymous reader writes "The currently-airing Discovery Channel show MythBusters has been profiled in a Newsweek article. Basically, the show takes two former Hollywood effects designers as they set out to prove or disprove various folklore myths that have come about over the years, such as the actual effect of a poppy-seed bagel on a drug test, or what effect a penny dropped from the Empire State Building observation deck will have on a human at ground level."

92 comments

  1. topics topics topics by Fux+the+Penguin · · Score: 1, Interesting
    I've watched this show several times and I can't wait to see the one about the penny dropped off the skyscraper. I sent them an email, though, and asked them to answer these if they ever get around to it:

    • Do you get wetter running or walking in the rain?
    • Just how dangerous is it to answer the call of nature on the electrified third rail of a train track?
    • Is cola really able to remove bloodstains and clean rust?
    1. Re:topics topics topics by Zack · · Score: 3, Informative

      They did do the Cola and bloodstains and rust... turns out it was marginally better than water at cleaning blood, but it cleaned the chrome on a car better than the chrome cleaner product that they had! Very cool show.

    2. Re:topics topics topics by Quinn · · Score: 1

      They conditionally busted the third rail urination myth. IIRC, in order to effectively electrocute yourself, you'd have to keep a solid stream, barefoot, in a puddle of water.

      It's a great show. Last week's had the walrus mustachioed guy wearing nothing but a beret and a pair of flimsy gold hot pants refusing to put a thermometer up his ass.

      They're in San Francisco.

      --
      #19845
    3. Re:topics topics topics by jeffy124 · · Score: 1

      they've done at least the second and third items you've listed. they also did the penny drop some weeks back. as for when you get wet more, i dont recall that one, though it may have been the week I missed since another poster listed it as one the myths they've tested. (for the results, wait for the re-runs or let some lamer spoil it for you)

      --
      The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    4. Re:topics topics topics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This wanker is just a troll. Check out his journal and mod the bastard down. You'll find that most if not all of his comments are actually lifted from others.

    5. Re:topics topics topics by john_many_jars · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cecil at Straight Dope (http://www.straightdope.com) has answered these and many other thousands of questions over the past 20-30 years. There is an archive with several hundred questions including the three in the parent.

    6. Re:topics topics topics by Ed+Almos · · Score: 2, Informative

      you do not get any wetter running in the rain rather than walking. They proved this on a British TV science show a few years back by making a group of (volunteer) kids either walk across the school yard or run whilst wearing cotton t-shirts. As it was in England it was of course raining.

      At the end of the trip they weighed all of the shirts and there was no difference.

      As for urinating on the third rail, at your own risk !! I would not like to try as the third rail here in Budapest is at 6,000 volts.

      Ed Almos

      --
      The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.
    7. Re:topics topics topics by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

      The Straight Dope on third-rail urination. Evidently, it's happened at least once.

    8. Re:topics topics topics by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 2, Funny
      Just how dangerous is it to answer the call of nature on the electrified third rail of a train track?
      I sure hope it's leathal. Anyone stupid enough to pee on a electrified rail should be removed from the gene pool.
    9. Re:topics topics topics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Straight Dope is not the most accurate source of answers to such questions.

  2. Awesome by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 1

    Glad to see them get press.

    Might not be the best, or most factual show on TV, but it's sure entertaining.

  3. Busted? by Godeke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if there is any way of "busting" urban myths. Even after I send people to various urban legend sites to combat the more annoying email variety, it seems some people are just credulous or just want a good story to tell. I suspect that the reality of it is irrelevant, and busted or not, the same stories with be with us for a very long time.

    --
    Sig under construction since 1998.
    1. Re:Busted? by BrynM · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I suspect that the reality of it is irrelevant, and busted or not, the same stories with be with us for a very long time.
      Ah, but now there's the additional story to tell: How a pair of wackos proved or disproved the old story. I don't think that they're killing the stories off as much as they are enhancing them. Maybe even assuring that some will be with us even longer, now that they are proven fact (bagel anyone?).
      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    2. Re:Busted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The problem is some of the "urban myth dispelling" sites are themselves unreliable or have agendas - e.g. snopes.com has a distinctly anti-european bias. Ring-a-ring-a-rosies, at least with the original British lyrics does indeed refer to the plague. Primary historical sources back that up, yet snopes refuses to acknowledge it.

    3. Re:Busted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another interesting question is why we have them at all. What human interests do these stories serve even when they are untrue? If we latch on to them because they tell us something we can readily believe to be true, but is actually false, then what are we assessing? For example, if the story of that friend of yours in college who had a friend who was drugged and had their kidney stolen is untrue, then what does it mean to us? What hidden fears does it reveal? Does it represent our fear of losing personal identity in an age of replaceable genetics? Something interesting to examine. While I like looking at the urban legends themselves in a quest to understand (and to feel better than the people who believe them, I cannot deny it), I also like to look at the metamessage of the urban legend. A little deconstructivism is a healthy part of any balanced diet.

      You can pass on values with rules (deontological), with ideals (teleological), or with stories (aretaic). True stories tell a mix of how we see the world and how it really is, but untrue ones tell only of how we see it. As an examination of our own perceptions, fears, and passions, an untrue story may tell more about the human experience than a true one.

    4. Re:Busted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's very true, also check out their very spurious research on the "Red Santa" myth, in which they are extremely selective about the evidence they use, ignoring, suprise suprise, a few hundred years of European culture.

    5. Re:Busted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you missed the part where Europe sux0rz. Antarctica is where it's at, baby. Boo-ya.

  4. And on the next episode... by weeboo0104 · · Score: 5, Funny

    They will explore whether or not a webserver can melt as a result of something called "The Slashdot effect".

    --
    It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  5. Maybe... by Asprin · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Maybe when they get done debunkning all of the ULs you can find on Snopes, they can turn their crosshairs on huckster quackery such as cell-phone radiation shield stickers, magnet therapy bracelets and all the other crap that shows up on late-night infomercials.

    THAT'S what I'd do to improve humanity.

    --
    "Lawyers are for sucks."
    - Doug McKenzie
    1. Re:Maybe... by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      Man, if you haven't tested your blood for ACIDITY you better get on the CORAL CALCIUM fast buddy...

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    2. Re:Maybe... by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 2, Informative

      Penn and Teller did "Bullshit" to bust open some of those kinds of things. I'd send you a URL, but sho.com refuses to serve pages to those of us outside the US for some reason.

      YAW.

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
    3. Re:Maybe... by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Amazing Randi, along with Penn and Teller and a host of other illusionists, have actually has done a couple of shows debunking certain quackeries and paranormal happenings.

      They mostly focus on psychic tricks and illusions-- showing tricks on how it is to get information on your dead relatives, by using selective questions and special wording, watching for you to react to certain words, etc.

      Their philosophy is that it's OK when everyone involved knows that the trick is for entertainment. The line is crossed when people start taking it seriously, and start paying large sums of money for quackery.

      Randi has even appeared on some popular kids science shows such as Bill Nye the Science guy where he'll take a horoscope, seperate each sign and the associated "fortune", mix them up, and then paste one sign to an unrelated fortune, so that the sign Aries actually has the fotune for "Taurus", etc.

      He then has audience members read the fotunes, and guages their reaction. "Gosh, that fortune sounds just like my brother, who is an Aries", when in fact it's just a fortune from another randomly selected sign. The fortunes are all so generic that they work for just about everyone, at about any point in your life.

      This stuff is mostly focused at kids, but it's a great science lesson.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    4. Re:Maybe... by elmegil · · Score: 1

      Of course "the amazing" Randi is one of the most dogmatically rude materialists I can imagine. I am entirely in support of debunking people who are making money taking advantage of the credulous, but he goes much farther over the line and will basically rudely denounce anyone making any claim that he hasn't personally verified. He has one of the most closed minds imaginable. If there were some way, for example, to counteract gravity that were to be discovered, he would be the last one to acknowledge that it was real, having wasted tons of rhetorical venom denouncing and assasinating the character of the discoverer. Such a waste of an otherwise excellent intellect is very sad to see.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    5. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you're offering millions of dollars to anybody who can prove their claims, and even letting the people chose their own testers and their own testing methods, and people keep losing anyway, you have a right to be cocky about it.

    6. Re:Maybe... by elmegil · · Score: 1
      When you're offering millions of dollars to anybody who can prove their claims, and even letting the people chose their own testers and their own testing methods, and people keep losing anyway, you have a right to be cocky about it.

      There's quite a bit of difference between being "cocky" and being "an asshole". Randi is the kind of guy who would stand up in front of a church full of people and berate them for their belief in God.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    7. Re:Maybe... by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to defend that sort of behavior, but he's gotten enough of that sort of stuff hurled at him from con artists that over the decades he probably sees it as "sauce for the goose".

    8. Re:Maybe... by elmegil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suppose. It doesn't seem to me that one does much good for a reputation as a skeptic by being dogmatic though. The point of skepticism is "prove it" not "that's impossible".

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    9. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Penn does the same thing. That's probably why they're good friends...

    10. Re:Maybe... by Noren · · Score: 3, Funny
      No, he'd just demand that pesky 'evidence' that snake oil peddlers worldwide have so much trouble coming up with. The nerve of him, to actually expect people making wild claims to substantiate them! It's ever so much easier to lie to people if you're never asked for, you know, evidence.

      I'm quite in favor of debunking the likes of John "the biggest douchebag in the universe" Edward.

    11. Re:Maybe... by Noren · · Score: 1

      They recently got renewed for a second season. Also, the first season is scheduled to be released on DVD.

    12. Re:Maybe... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      So he is a member of the ACLU?

    13. Re:Maybe... by elmegil · · Score: 1

      No, as far as I've seen, Penn has a sense of humor.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    14. Re:Maybe... by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 1

      In reading his site, though, I don't see that attitude. He pretty clearly has a "prove it" attitude, or else his million dollar prize doesn't make any sense. The worst I've seen is that he has no compunction about pointing out pretty clearly that past failures are, in fact, failures. He'll often suggest theories on what's going on (e.g., he'll point out that so-called psychics use cold-reading techniques), but I don't see a "that's impossible" attitude.

      One thing charlatans don't like about him is that he doesn't care to hear their explanations of why something supposedly happens. He always cuts to the chase and demands a demonstration. A lot of con artists work by overwhelming the marks with a bunch of technical-sounding gobbledy-gook. As a professional magician, though, he's already familiar with most of their ploys.

    15. Re:Maybe... by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 1

      Excellent. Thanks for that info.

      YAW.

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
    16. Re:Maybe... by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1
      Which he did, in essence, on the Tonight Show when he busted Peter Popoff.

      Here's one link that's pretty good.

      Here's a Google search for your convenience.

      As for Randi's attitude, more power to him! There are too many frauds out there, from Uri Geller to John Edwards, "The Biggest Douche In The Universe!" and they ALL need to be shown up and humiliated in public.

      And given all the lies and deception Randi has seen over the years by dishonest fuckers like Geller and Edwards, his abrasive attitude is understandable.

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    17. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A gravity shield would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy, because it would allow a perpetual motion machine consisting of a partially shielded flywheel.

      So, if someone discovers a way to counteract gravity (besides just applying another force), they are going against a very well-established theory. That's not to say they're wrong, but for anyone to take them seriously, they'd have to provide a great deal of strong evidence. (Repeatable, independantly verifiable experiments.) At that point, most people would attempt to explain the shield in some other way (perhaps it's losing mass to spin the flywheel), perhaps modifying existing theories, perhaps creating new ones. The best theory should become generally accepted. This is how the system works.

      But sometimes you get megalomaniacs who think that all of science is wrong and they're right. If they can't back it up, they deserve rudeness - their egos are in serious need of adjustment. (OT: McBride fits this template perfectly, and I'm sure you don't think we should be nice to him.)

    18. Re:Maybe... by elmegil · · Score: 1

      It's not his website, it's his personal behavior, and things I've seen him write in, for example, Skeptic magazine.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  6. My favorite show by develop · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's one of my favorite shows. Three thumbs up on the TiVo. For those interested here is a list of some of the topics they covered.

    1. coke's ability to remove blood stains/rust/etc
    2. do piercing's make you more susceptible to lightening
    3. ice bullets (CIA myth)
    4. the JADO rocket on the car in the desert
    5. the weather balloon lawn chair story
    6. running in the rain keeps you drier then walking
    7. eel skin wallets erase credit cards
    8. smoking on the toliet can kill ya
    9. poppy seeds can make you test positive on a drug test
    10. peeing on the third rail will kill ya
    11. tree canon
    12. ways to beat a breathalyzer
    13. dropping a hammer in the water before you fall in will break your fall
    14. penny off the empire state building
    15. exploding cdrom drivers
    16. breast implants explode in airplanes

    anyway - good show... no answers listed - watch the show to find out.

    1. Re:My favorite show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks a lot... some of us can't get cable...

      And I really need to learn the breathalyzer one...

    2. Re:My favorite show by jpmkm · · Score: 1

      And I really need to learn the breathalyzer one...

      That was a myth, which they busted. That's what the show is all about. Busting myths. If only they could come up with a good, descriptive name for it.
    3. Re:My favorite show by ag3n7 · · Score: 1

      They didn't bust the poppy seed bagel one though.

      Quite the opposite.

    4. Re:My favorite show by jpmkm · · Score: 1

      I know. I said the show was about busting myths. I said they busted the myth myth about fooling the breathalyzer test. I never said they busted any other myths.

    5. Re:My favorite show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just what I need, a way to fail a drug test.

    6. Re:My favorite show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How to beat a breathalzyer:
      don't drink, you lush.

    7. Re:My favorite show by h3 · · Score: 1

      Some more not listed:

      17. Barrel of Bricks (my 2nd favorite segment, after Penny Drop)
      18. Cell phone destroys gas station
      19. Microwave madness
      20. Pop rocks (another fave)
      21. one about a fat woman on an airplane toilet
      22. Radio fillings

      There are probably others (should be a multiple of 3).

      This is my favorite show and I'm glad they brought it back to their regular schedule after a limited run early this spring. One thing people don't often mention is that it's the personality of the hosts that really make it. The subjects are interesting, especially to geeks, but Jamie (the one with the moustache) plays a perfect straight man to Adam's goofiness (best seen when they're both drunk in the breathalyzer segment).

      Here's a link to their effects house's web site (not too much info, but some good pics of their facility) http://www.m5industries.com
      -h3

  7. Vint Cerf told me that Al Gore was in fact... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Offtopic


    Vint Cerf told me that Al Gore was in fact the strongest early supporter of making the old ArpaNet into the public utility we call the Internet. Without Gore's technical understanding and power in the U.S. Congress, it would have taken much longer.

    For those who can remember back that far, there were many ArpaNet users who did now want the system open to the public. There was intense opposition to making the system open to commercial interests, too. Al Gore was a true visionary, in this case.

  8. Exploding cd rom drivers by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Funny

    "15. exploding cdrom drivers"

    That is why I use a special version of WinZip that includes a reinformed titanium shell for my file downloads. You never known when one of these might detonate inside the modem or at the wall phone-plug outlet.

    I'm sure glad the RIAA has not discovered exploding files. It could escalate their war against p2p to a new level.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  9. Move along people, nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In thirty minutes, they tackle 2, yep, count em, 2 myths. In that same amount of time you could have read around 30-50 pages on snopes, without commercial breaks. TV is slow and dull, like the people who watch it.

    P.S. - Running in the rain will make you wetter than walking. Just use common sense. You are running right in to the rain from the side, without reducing the amount falling on your head in any way.

    1. Re:Move along people, nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although I should add, this is if you are comparing 1 minute walking in the rain to 1 minute running in the rain. If you are just talking point a to point b, walking will make you more wet, cause you are hanging around in the rain! Again, just common sense.

    2. Re:Move along people, nothing to see here. by Gaijin42 · · Score: 1

      well, except you are forgetting somehting. at any moment in time, there are raindrops suspended in the air. and you run into them. So you have less rain hit you from the top, but you have more rain hit you in the chest and face as you move forward into them.

  10. Bzzt... .wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Vint Cerf told me that Al Gore was in fact the strongest early supporter of making the old ArpaNet into the public utility we call the Internet."

    Cerf is either wrong, or you are misquoting him. The Internet had been in existence for a few years, under the name of Internet, by the time Gore first got to Congress and got involved in its funding.

    He was a visionary in expanding the Internet, but he certainly did not create it (or take the initiative in creating it.

    Is it also news to you that Lindbergh did not invent the airplane and Henry Ford did not invent the automobile? Bill Gates did not invent the GUI either, by the way.

    1. Re:Bzzt... .wrong by Axeling · · Score: 1

      Actually, although it may have been a misstatement, it is grounded in some truth. Certainly, the internet as we have come to know it did not exist at that time.

      Some other articles on this issue: 1 2

    2. Re:Bzzt... .wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is is news to you that Lindberght didn't claim to invent the airplane, Ford dind't clame to invent the auto, and Gates didn't claim to invent the GUI? No? Then why can't you understand that Al Gore didn't claim to invent the internet. It's a myth. Do some research and find out what he really said, then compare it to what happened. His statement wan't false.

    3. Re:Bzzt... .wrong by zulux · · Score: 1

      It's a myth. Do some research and find out what he really said, then compare it to what happened. His statement wan't false.

      Actually, all us here in the vast-right-wing-conspiricy know we made all that Al Gore stuff up, and probably shoulden't repeat it - it's just that we just love to see y'all squirm and whine like little squirmy whiny things.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

  11. Re:Al Gore invented the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of course al gore invented the internet. it's all based on al-gore-ithms, right?

    [yes, that sound you hear is indeed millions of slashdotters groaning over a bad pun]

  12. Re:what happens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    basically, they modified a rifle to fire a penny at about the same speed a penny would be falling at after traveling the 80 or so stories, factoring in updraft and the like. they then took small sections of sidewalk concrete and asphalt, along with a human skull embedded in balistics gel, and then fired the gun at all three multiple times.

    oh, you say you want to know what happened during those shots? go find out yourself! you know how to use google, right?

  13. Exploding CD rom drives by BeatdownGeek · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I didn't see the episode so I'm not sure exactly what this was explaining... If it was talking about CDs exploding in the drive I can vouch for that.

    I had a CD explode in the drive before. It apparently had a miniscule crack (in the CD), and I guess when it was spinning in the drive at full speed, the centrifugal force just made it blow apart. Sounded like a gunshot. Scared the crap out of me. I'll never use those crappy generic CD-Rs again.

    When I called up Dell support the guy scratched his head at first but then when he talked to other ppl he said a few others had gotten similar calls. His support advice:

    "Open the drive tray and shake the computer until all the bits of CD come out. It should be fine; they're pretty sturdy."
    1. Re:Exploding CD rom drives by elmegil · · Score: 1

      Yah, they came up with a "yes" for this one. You have to spin the thing really fast, and it usually has to be somehow slightly off center or off balance, but it was not very hard for them to blow up CD's in their tests.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    2. Re:Exploding CD rom drives by pmz · · Score: 1

      they're pretty sturdy.

      Let's hope so, because the ballistics dummy in the show looked like a bomb victim after their open-air tests.

  14. Official Site by Drunken_Jackass · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is the official site for the show. There are a few fan sites that are navigable off of the main site too.

    It's quite and entertaining and informative show, and should definately be Tivo'd (since, you know, we're all out on Friday nights).

    --
    There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
  15. They were almost really buried alive by netringer · · Score: 4, Informative
    Did you see the one that went wrong?

    When they checked out the "Buried Alive!" urban legends by burying one in a metal coffin to see how long the air lasted, they didn't have all the information they needed.

    The funeral home was happy to sell them a metal coffin but didn't tell them they bury coffins inside a concrete burial vault.

    When the Mythbusters dumped several tons of dirt on the coffin with the tester inside the coffin began to collapse from the load.

    They never did explain why they had that problem - A modern coffin can't be - and isn't buried by itself.

    --
    Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
    1. Re:They were almost really buried alive by Geraden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I saw this, and was very displeased that they took Jamie's safety so casually. Just a little bit of research would have led them to the concrete vault information.

      Shows that even though they take pains to try to ensure realism, even they can mess up sometimes!

    2. Re:They were almost really buried alive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thing about it was most of the stories of being burried alive were from times when there weren't concrete vaults.

      It's still a lapse in their research.

    3. Re:They were almost really buried alive by gnovos · · Score: 1

      Are you sure? I thought that was just an urban legend...

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
  16. Re:Al Gore invented the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know why that myth doesn't go away. He didn't say it. This is the first time I've heard this myth as being as CNN interview. Funny how these stories grow and grow.

  17. And the answer is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    17. Profit!!!!

  18. Don't whizz on the electric fence! by Faeton · · Score: 1
    In CKY4, Bam Magera and Raab Himself of CKY/Jackass fame tested that if you piss on an electric fence, it *really* does electrocute your frank and beans. It hurt Raab so much that he rolls around naked in snow for a while due to the shock/pain. All in the name of science! You can also find out what happens when you try to take a dump while running at full speed (to prove a George Carlin monologue wrong) in CKY2K

    You can buy the DVD here

    1. Re:Don't whizz on the electric fence! by osjedi · · Score: 1


      True story. Boy Scout campout on the back property of a dairy farm when I was a teen. Kid walks over and pees on a bush. Electric fence runs THROUGH the bush. The rest of us were only about 15 feet away. In very halting screams he yells "AAHHHHH...CAN'T....STOP....CAN'T... STOP.....AAHHHHHH!!!" He pretty much stood there getting zapped until he lost pressure. I should be more sympathetic, but I laugh every time I think about it because we all looked at each other and thought the same thing. Karma. (Believe me, he had it coming)

      --
      -=-=-=-=- osjedi uses Debian GNU/Linux. -=-=-=-=-
  19. Already answered by devphil · · Score: 1


    www.straightdope.com

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  20. Myths and Urban Legends by GrahamMastaFlash · · Score: 1

    If the Discovery show piqued your interest in busting commonly-held myths, check out www.snopes.com It analyses the truth behind those stories you always hear about Disney putting "SEX" in its movies, Richard Gere becoming involved with a gerbil, and other urban legends.

    1. Re: Myths and Urban Legends by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Richard Gere becoming involved with a gerbil

      Strictly speaking, the story claims that the gerbil gets involved with Richard Gere!

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Myths and Urban Legends by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      Richard Gere becoming involved with a gerbil,

      The more notable thing than wether the U.L. is true or not is how easy it is for most people to believe it of Richard Gere. We have a pretty strong opinion about those left coasters here in flyover country...

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    3. Re: Myths and Urban Legends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the gerbil gets involved with Richard Gere's rear.

  21. What about... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


    ...the myth that Slashdotters can't get laid.

    And more importantly, how are they going to test it?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy: Adam and Jamie just going to have you bend over...

    2. Re:What about... by Wonda · · Score: 1

      oh, but they can!

      keep trying :)

  22. Running In the Rain by chriso11 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you get wetter walking or running from point A to B in the rain? OK, let's make some key assumptions:
    The amount of rain falling is constant and is equal between point A and B. Wind is not a factor. Assume that the rain drops are at critical velocity. You move through the path at a constant velocity.

    Now, imagine freezing time - with all of the raindrops fixed in place. The rain that would hit you in 3s is maybe 100 feet up, while the the rain that hits you in 6 sec is 200 feet up. So, you simply convert the amount of time it takes to traverse A to B, and convert that to the vertical distance of the rain drops that would hit you when you get to point B. Then, you can simply use C^2 = A^2 + B^2, where A is the path length and B corresponds to the amount of time (rain height). So minimizing the C, total path length in the rain reduces how wet you get. Even if you moved at near-infinite speed, you would still get wet in the rain, but not as wet as someone who never moved.

    --
    No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    1. Re:Running In the Rain by lone_marauder · · Score: 1

      Even if you moved at near-infinite speed, you would still get wet in the rain,

      Yeah, but the real question is, if you throw punches in the rain, does your opponent's face turn into silly putty?

      --
      who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
  23. Great show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been watching this show for awhile now and I think it's great. It's funny, it's some-what factional, and it's fun. I hope this won't turn into a short-lived series on Discovery, like most of the other primetime shows they air.

    Fortress of Insanity
    Blogzine

  24. One of the best shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was suprised to see them having very scientific mind when the first time I watched the show. They usually try different versions of the same experiment, varrying only small parameters to see how that parameter effects the results. Two thumps up !!!!

  25. 11. Tree Canon by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 1

    I've never heard of the show until today, but it sounds cool. I'm especially interesting in the tree cannon, since my roommate made a sort of tree missile using six or seven sticks of dynamite and a ~60 ft doug fir (ahh...to be young and stupid in rural Montana), and I've heard of Survival Research Lab's Pitching Machine which chucks 6 ft long 2x4's up to 800 feet, but a tree cannon sounds like something different. Unfortunately a brief googling didn't seem to turn up anything.

  26. Re:11. Tree Canon by GoRK · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, the tree cannon is not as really exciting as you probably expect. It's a cannon barrel built out of a tree -- not a device that shoots tree trunks some ungodly distance.

    The myth says that long ago, some town in Hungary at odds with a neighboring town built a cannon out of a tree overnight to shoot at their enemy; however, when they fired it, the cannon exploded killing half of their own town.

    The show involves the guys building a tree cannon and some ammo using nothing but tools available at the time set in the myth. (except they discover the drilling would have taken far longer than a day as told in the story -- they end up using a power drill to speed the process)

    Anyway, the cannon ends up working really well, so they declare the story implausable especially considering the impossible one day construction time. As they often do, they then go way overboard in an attempt to make the story true at any cost -- they dump 5lbs of gunpowder in the thing and plug up the end with aluminum and blow it all to hell.

    Sorry for revealing the entire "plot", but they show clips throughout the whole thing -- the show isn't exactly unpredictable, but it's great fun to watch! Check it out.

  27. It was grounded in a lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Actually, although it may have been a misstatement, it is grounded in some truth. Certainly, the internet as we have come to know it did not exist at that time."

    So? The internet as we know it did not exist before Spamford Wallace started to spam it. Or before Berners-Lee gave us the WWW. Or before the first banner ad appeared.

    No, these guys and Gore influenced the internet after it was created, but none of them created it.

  28. Al Gore did claim to invent the internet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Then why can't you understand that Al Gore didn't claim to invent the internet"

    Actually, he did make this claim. He used the word "Create" which means the same as the word "invent" in this context. And his claim was certainly false, either way.

    Just like if you paint a house crimson, you have painted it red. His statement was false: since he had nothing to do with is invention/creation. Check the years. The Internet had been created years before Gore got to congress.

  29. What Al Gore said. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    ""During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet," Gore said"

    Read by a normal person, one with out the word parsing ability of Clinton and/or Karl Rove, that looks like he is taking credit for "creating the Internet".

  30. The internet was a political achievement, also. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Many technically oriented people think of the Internet as a technical achievement. Gore thought of it as a political achievement. His achievement was to make it a public utility. This seems obvious now. It wasn't then. At the time, other political leaders were technically clueless.

  31. An answer provided by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1
    From the article: "Is Jimmy Hoffa's body lying perfectly preserved in the concrete foundation of the Meadowlands sports stadium?"

    No. Groundbreaking for the stadium at the Meadowlands (Giants Stadium) was in 1972, and Hoffa disappeared in the summer of '75. By then the stadium was not far from completion; the foundations had been laid long before.

    However, the nearby New Jersey Turnpike is paved with concrete, and elevated portions of it are continually being resurfaced to deal with the effects of East Coast winters. Most people I knew when I was growing up in that area who had an opinion on the subject considered the Turnpike to be the most likely resting place for Hoffa.

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
    1. Re:An answer provided by Oriumpor · · Score: 1
      when I was growing up in that area who had an opinion on the subject considered the Turnpike to be the most likely resting place for Hoffa.


      So that's that smell.
  32. Re:what happens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Informative? Yet the post doesn't INFORM the OP of the results? You, moderator, are a pure, unadulterated FUCKHEAD crack smoker.