Slashdot Mirror
The Mismatched 'MythBusters'
biohack writes "Most fans of the MythBusters would agree that the two hosts of the show, Adam and Jamie, are 'diametrically opposed in every aspect of their lives'. The Christian Science Monitor story about the MythBusters explores the connection between the backgrounds of the hosts (who knew that Jamie had a degree in Russian literature?) and their creative differences on and off camera." From the article: "It took Hyneman a of couple years to feel comfortable talking in front of a camera, let alone to strangers on the street. 'You have to remember that I'm a guy who is happiest in a dark room just thinking,' he says. 'I'm not a sociable person. I don't like to talk.' Savage, on the other hand, is outgoing. They're clearly the Oscar and Felix of myth busting ... 'Jamie is all about total, complete, and utter control. Thinking first and then acting. Adam is about acting first and then thinking.'"
about Jamie that he's manic-depressive? It's part of the comedy of watching him.
I thought they were brothers. Must have been the matching red hair.
To my surprise, they're not.
What about Keri. I want to know about my favorite Redhead......
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
If they were both the same, the show would get pretty boring.
Perhaps their opposite personalities are one reason they got gig.
Adam usually does things the long difficult way and it usually ends up in failure. Jamie's plans always seem to work and they are well constructed.
Adam makes the show watchable because his idea's and his personality make it interesting TV, while you have Jamie at the same time showing you the right way to do things.
This combination is what makes good viewing and evenly balanaced between entertainment/humor and education.
I would hate to watch the show with someone who couldn't stand up to Jamie, Adam does this well and thats why the show works so well. If Jamie was allowed complete control everytime, it would be boring.
I guess this busts the myth that they're the same person.
slow news day.
You can really feel the anti-social vibe that Jamie gives off even with a single viewing of the show. His science is stellar, but he sometimes seems to be a little too aloof.
His science is far from "stellar". Often, it's quite poor. One should never watch MythBusters for anything but its entertainment value. More often than not they completely misunderstand and incorrectly describe scientific and engineering concepts that are in reality quite simple.
Their methodologies make many professional product testers and scientists cringe. We can clearly see their mistakes, but those who don't have much scientific training may not. To take their "findings" seriously is a big mistake, but many people do it anyway.
Their show is far more educational and entertaining than most of the shit that is on TV. But the educational value it does provide is quite petty, and often quite bad, as it misinforms the viewer.
You have a thoughtfull scientist + a crazy man. The only reason that Adam is there is to introduce chaos and to be the "x factor" that attracts viewers. Jamie is there to lend credibility to their dubious experimentation.
A lot of the time though the experiments Jamie creates are very crude and not optimal solutions. For instance the cat burglar thing. He used gigantic permanent magnets to climb the ventilation that made a ear shattering thud each time they connected to metal. Much less the fact that his design relied on metallic ventilation systems. The design constraints for ventilation do not include magnetism. However Adam's solution involved vacuum pressure. A ventilation system is designed around good airflow which usually involves smooth surfaces aside from odd instances where a precisely textured surface reduces friction, not likely in ventilation systems.
Adam, the idiot protagonist, had a better design because his exploit involved an unavoidable property of ventilation. Jamie just tried to do something different or was brain-dead and used a coincidental, though widespread, property of the medium.
Why is this on slashdot anyway?
...with both diagnoses, he seems more of a case of ADHD. He's fully functional in modern (American) society, which is why I disapprove of parents who automatically want to medicate their kids at the first sign. I suspect he'd be deemed "stupid, expendable, and going" in an earlier age.
Eh, what do I care, as long as I'm not living within blast range of him?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
The word "science" is used in the older sense, denoting knowledge. The Church of Christian Science doesn't pretend to be a bunch of scientists.
Their "science" may be predictably flawed time and time again... but they're interesting.
I like it when stuff explodes for the sake of seeing something explode.
8==8 Bones 8==8
Their show is far more educational and entertaining than most of the shit that is on TV. But the educational value it does provide is quite petty, and often quite bad, as it misinforms the viewer.
But all of that is made up for when they blow up cement trucks.
A friend of mine was a PA assistant on the show at one point, and says that they actually do NOT get along very well...
When I first started watching the show, I got the impression that they were childhood friends or something... they seemed to get along quite well, and when they had a disagreement, they managed to work it out. I was surprised to discover that this was, in fact, NOT true. (Their relationship is basically professional, only.)
;)
Still, I think it's a *great* show, and I enjoy it a lot. Some of the humor they've added is great. I think they have the right combination of supporting staff, now, and I hope they don't change it anymore.
The only nit I would pick is with their narrator sometimes repeatedly mis-pronouncing easy words, like "Mee-thane" for Methane. There was another blatant one, recently, but I can't remember it, now. Oh well. If that's the worst nit, I guess they're doing OK.
Willie...
I think a trip to wikipedia should dispell your ignorant view.
n itor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_Mo
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
And not just the entertainment side, mind you. The science side also benefits from the mix of personalities.
Some problems require finesse and fine planning. Others require repeated blows with a hammer. I think that's why the producers occasionally pit Adam vs. Jamie on some myth-type task. To see which works best for a given situation: The Thinker, or the X-Factor.
It's a damn good show on a lot of levels, really.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Introvert and extravert are the most common matches. Just like Guardian/Artisan (SJ/SP). This is basic Jung (and MBTI and Keirsey...)
Seriously, this is news?
Have you read my journal today?
It is well known that one reason people grow facial hair is to build a personal "wall" between themselves and the world.
That, or hide a weak chin.
"I think a trip to wikipedia should dispell your ignorant view."
Sorry, but my view remains the same really... Sure it seems like it might be a relatively decent publication, but:
a) It is a religious publication which includes religious sections
&
b) Is subjected to church vetting
And the Christian Science church is a group who believes in faith healing, and calls that Science.
The Christian Science Monitor is one of the most well-respected newspapers in circulation. Maybe you should start reading more. And no, blogs do not count.
"Who knew that Jamie had a degree in Russian literature?"
I did, as I just watched the "Bullets fired straight up" episode last night. Gotta love coincidences.
> It is well known that one reason people grow facial hair is to build a personal "wall" between themselves and the world.
Another reason: to look fucking awesome! http://www.worldbeardchampionships.com/
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
As soon as they start building death rays or chicken guns, that's when.
Mythbusters is science, done in a fun way. Ever watch Mr. Wizard or Bill Nye? Or Jearl Walker? That's the schtick these guys are in. Science as fun. You know, so that the next generation of kids will think science is cool and keep making/building/inventing stuff.
Science isn't just a field of study - it's also an establishment. And good PR is part of any successful establishment.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Is it any wonder, then, that Jamie would grow facial hair? It is well known that one reason people grow facial hair is to build a personal "wall" between themselves and the world. Behind this wall, they can smile, frown, grimace, snicker, and otherwise run the emotional gamut without revealing themselves to others.
Cryptonomicon - Charlene vs. Randy
[Insert pithy quote here]
Obviously you didn't read too much from the article, since both are answered in the first paragraph of the entry:
Despite its name, the Monitor was not established to be a religious-themed paper, nor does it directly promote the doctrine of its patron church. However, at its founder Eddy's request, a daily religious article has appeared in every issue of the Monitor. Eddy also required the inclusion of "Christian Science" in the paper's name, over initial opposition by some of her advisors who thought the religious reference might repel a secular audience.
As to your second point, Webster's dictionary has a very interesting definition of science:
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
We could easily include any metaphysical musings about faith healing. So for all of the crap, you didn't get much eh?
Or not wanting to shave every day.
Bullshit on both counts.
I grow facial hair because I am a lazy basterd who can't be bothered to shave in the morning (I'm busy finding coffee). So I shave every few days once it gets annoying enough.
So there.
nevermind my manic/sociopathic disdain for the (frightfully) average driver who seems to think that driving in the median and sidewalk is acceptable. (you all now know my pet peeve, that and tailgating, but a sunroof and various objects fixes the latter quickly).
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
And you obviously didn't read any further when it mentions that it is indeed vetted for content that disagrees with the Church's views.
Your definition of science taken from the dictionary, I believe tends to go completely against what the church (not this one in particular, but organised religion as a whole) has done for centuries, which is hold back the true understanding of things because it goes against what the bible states.
The CSM is generally a high-quality paper, with well-known and unhidden biases, as pretty much everyone agrees.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Strictly speaking, they are neither testing products nor doing science. Is the cringe the result of not knowing how to operate a fucking TV remote?
Take the simple case of Diet Coke and Mentos: 1) roll film 2) open diet coke 3) drop in Mentos. Where is the cringe?
Jamie is probably borderline sociopathic
Oh please, because he doesn't like talking to people, let alone in front of the camera? That's idiotic. I hate talking to people, and I can't imagine being paid enough to talk on camera; I'm no where near a sociopath.
Of the two, I identify most with Jamie. I "get" him. Despite what the current MTV generation would have you believe, neither he nor myself have any notable mental conditions.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I'm an atheist too, but I'll be damned if the CSM isn't a good paper. You just have to ignore the last couple of pages. Yes Christian Scientists believe in crazy things, that doesn't mean that they can't hire good reporters.
Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
Everytime an article from the Christian Science Monitor is posted, someone goes into a rant like yours, and then a bunch of people write posts about how CSM is one of the best written and researched papers in America.
Your userid implies that you aren't new here. So, either you can't read, or you like to stir up shit. Which one is it?
His science is far from "stellar". Often, it's quite poor. One should never watch MythBusters for anything but its entertainment value.
Isn't it quite obvious that "entertainment value" is the primary purpose of the show? Mythbusters wasn't ever supposed to be a seriously educational show. It is interesting entertainment, like the geek equivalent to professional wrestling--just like WWE isn't real wrestling, Mythbusters isn't real science.
Their methodologies make many professional product testers and scientists cringe. We can clearly see their mistakes, but those who don't have much scientific training may not.
Well, the methodologies of professional researchers would make the average TV viewer fall asleep--even the average Discovery Channel viewer. The majority of viewers will indeed miss the flaws in their inivestigations, but it isn't hard research. For the minority who DO catch the flaws and care enough to be bothered by them write Adam and Jamie and popint out their oversights--they don't do much to hide that fact and have on occasion revisited myths.
But the educational value it does provide is quite petty, and often quite bad, as it misinforms the viewer.
Well, considering that Adam and Jamie are not acutally professional scientists or educators, but rather skilled technicians in the field of motion picture effects, I do not think most people would rely on their show for serious education purposes (though it might be great material for high school science classes for critical analysis of their investigative methods--where they go right and wrong). If someone comes away from that show unquestionably believing everything in it is completely untained, scientific conclusions then they have more to worry about than being misinformed--they need work in their skills at critical thinking.
I for one just like to watch the banter between Adam and Jamie, and seeing things explode, burn and crash. And Kari getting painted silver, and, well, being eye candy. They should hire another red-head geek-chickie...like Kate Botello perhaps.
Kari and Kate and a tub full of ballistics gel....mmmmmm.....
Does it hurt to make asinine conclusions based upon superficial knowledge? I ask because being stupid should hurt.
I was looking for the 'obvious' tag, but then I remembered this is not fark. Oh, well, time to engage the brain.
Anybody who has watched the show should be able to figure out that Jamie is an introverted control freak with a passion for safety and thinking things through. Savage is an extroverted exhibitionist who baresly remembers safety or forethought. Together they make a great odd-couple/buddy-buddy duo. I think part of the reason to watch the show is observe the interactions between the two hosts.
The addition of Grant (the geek), Tory & Kari (Joe & Jane public?) have been positive for the show. Having the two groups intermix on different projects almost lets you see the dynamics of group interaction.
It's a valuable resource for stories that often won't make the mainstream press. For a news outlet it's unique in the fact that it isnt funded through advertising so outside the contempory pressures imposed on the media by big business. Thats not to say it isn't subject to other outside pressures. I often skim it for anything interesting, the religous stuff doesn't interest me but you know what there's a simple soultion don't read those articles. Even so you should be critising everything you read as news, religous dogma is the easiest stuff to spot and filter out.
If you want a true picture of the world you should be looking to as many sources as possible.
I was at a San Francisco restaurant at lunchtime waiting for a friend to arrive near the Metreon off of Market St. I needed a cigarette so I stood in the alley off of 4th St. I was just kind of lazily pacing back and forth puffing on my delicious cigarette and I turned around. Adam Savage walked by on 4th street and happened to look down the alley at me. I just said "Hey Mythbuster!" and stared at him like a stunned monkey. (It was just an odd place to see someone I had seen on TV the night before.)
He replied "How's it goin'?" And I didn't say anything. I just stood there.
I think he was referring to me in that article. People who say "Hey" and nothing else.
Not an exciting story but what the hell...
It's a known trait of sociopaths that they do not recognize themselves as such.
I'm not pointing any fingers here, but try to look at your hate of social interaction objectively. You may find that maybe you're not quite the well-adjusted human being you thought you were.
"The CSM is generally a high-quality paper, with well-known and unhidden biases, as pretty much everyone agrees."
I do actually have to agree it's a good thing when the bias and beliefs of the owners of the publication are easily known and studied. This is very favourable when compared to, say, Murdoch, who I have no idea of his beliefs and theological leanings (although I'm sure it's not that hard to discover). Even if I did find out about those things, it's not stated anywhere that his views are pushed down to his outlets, although that seems to be the case.
That they are open about their ownership, and that ownership is open about what they believe is all good.
I just would have a hard time putting that much credence in a group of people who believe that all 'bad' things are not real, but are lies.
Her name is spelled Kari. :)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
"It is well known that one reason people grow facial hair is to build a personal "wall" between themselves and the world."
Well known by whom?
This is unverifiable and useless psychobabble.
I wouldn't call disdain for having to share the road with morons who find it difficult to drive correctly manic or sociopathic. In fact, I would call that quite normal and healthy.
"Have you ever actually read an article published in the CSM?"
To be perfectly honest, no I don't think I ever have. And I'm sure they do have many fine articles, as do all sorts of other publications that have their own biases. As long as you do read with any possible biases in mind (which I always try to), I agree that good information can be gathered from a lot of sources.
However, it strikes me as odd that an organisation that doesn't believe in things like conventional medicine and certain strains of science etc. would be doing a piece on a scientific show.
If Mythbusters did some myth that involved asprin or the like, would they have to not watch? It's just an odd match to me that's all.
You may find that maybe you're not quite the well-adjusted human being you thought you were.
Love it; "You must conform. If you don't, you are somehow mal-adjusted. "
I'd argue that anybody who doesn't have an adversion to socializing in todays society is mal-adjusted. Look at all the scary shit out there; What sane person would subject themselves to that?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
"Who knew that Jamie had a degree in Russian literature?" During the vodka tasting episode, the announcer says that Jamie has a degree in Russian literature. (This is the myth that running cheap vodka through a filter will increase its quality to that of a high quality vodka)
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Funny you should say that, because they then went on to determine, "scientifically", which parts of the ingredients of Diet Coke influenced the effect. They also "scientifically" attempted to explain why it happened.
Scientifically is in quotes because they essentially ran one test, watched soda splatter all over the place, and left it at that. Actual experimentation would involve multiple runs to confirm results, actual measurements (versus "I think that was about twice as high"), and, oh, I don't know, science.
They didn't bother checking to see if they were matching the amount of the ingredients they were testing to actual Diet Coke. They didn't bother measuring the actual result. They didn't bother combining ingredients to see if there was a combined effect. They didn't bother doing just about anything that might be considered scientfic.
Plus they repeatedly claim to be doing actual science on the show. They run clip shows showing "cut footage" to try and prove that they're doing "actual science". But they're not. Their science is barely grade school level. You might be able to pass your 8th grade science class running "experiments" of the quality they do, but that's about it.
The beret is a dead give away.
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
The views and beliefs of the ownership shouldn't be a problem, and if you read the news properly it isn't. I don't read an article to find out what the writers opinion is, I read it to find out whats happening then I draw my own conlusions and form an opinion. Now the writers article may be biased and exclude crucial info, but that's why you get your news from different sources.
"I just would have a hard time putting that much credence in a group of people who believe that all 'bad' things are not real, but are lies."
Theologically speaking, it's actually far more complex than that, and within the complexity it becomes a lot more understandable. I'm not saying that you should believe it, I'm just stating that by oversimplifying, you're making it sound a lot more bizarre than it actually is.
Speaking as a former Christian Scientist (born and raised, and my entire family still follows that faith) and a current religion student, there is plenty of far weirder shit out there than Christian Science.
On the other hand, if you find that their science is continually bad, perhaps you should step back for a second and re-examine your own science. I've gotten in a few arguments online where people go "The Mythbusters got it all wrong" and usually it's the case the the Mythbusters were much closer to the truth than the online folks. A good half of the time people just don't pay close enough attention and think they're testing something they're not.
For instance, earlier today I saw a guy online complain about how the busted the myth that shooting people with bullets will knock them back. He said that any police officer knows that when you shoot someone they get knocked down, but what he didn't realize was that the Mythbusters were testing if bullets could actually knock you back like in the movies (though plate glass windows, or even just literally pushing you back), not if someone shot with a bullet would fall down. I think the Mythbusters got it spot on, and they even did the math on the show to point out that the physics aren't with having a handgun bullet actually propel a person on planet Earth.
I read the internet for the articles.
"Love it; "You must conform. If you don't, you are somehow mal-adjusted. ""
I don't think they were saying that you must conform, it's more the case that you really, really don't like social interaction. Interacting with people is not necessarily conforming, it's merely living.
Your comments that the world is a scary place that you don't think anyone should be socialising in is a very sad commentary on the world. I don't see it that way at all, and love getting out into it, amongst it, and being with people. If that puts me at greater risk of something bad happening just due to the fact that I'm doing more things, then so be it, I've lived a richer and fuller life than if I staying in the relative safety of my home.
I'm not saying that everyone needs to be a social butterfly to be 'normal' or 'healthy', but if you're that scared of other people and 'society' in general, perhaps you should think about exactly what it is that scares you so much, and what you may be missing out on by avoiding society as a whole.
Is it just me, or do these guys have the coolest jobs on the planet? Spending your time designing experiments, building stuff, and then if all else fails, blowing it up! Does it get any better than that?
You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
I think you're abusing the term 'socipath.' Sociopaths are extremly maladjusted, not just shy people who are uncomfortable in public.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
For your information here is a link to M5 Industries (Jamie Hyneman's) special effects shop: http://www.m5industries.com/ :(
And in case you were wondering they do not give tours or accept job applications.
Adam also has his own personal website: http://www.adamsavage.com/
Can anyone see these two hanging out after work? I don't think they get along very well. Adam is constantly making fun of the moustache, and Jamie obviously gets frustrated with Adam's antics.
If your post is any indication...
When all you've got is a hammer, sometimes it's just a lot of fun to swing it wildly and see what falls over.
Is that code for "I was just trolling?"
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
It is well known that one reason people grow facial hair is to build a personal "wall" between themselves and the world.
:-)
Or just lazy when it comes to shaving
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
Love it; "You must conform. If you don't, you are somehow mal-adjusted. "
No, it's more like, "If you can't function as a normal human, then you are maladjusted, by definition". Social interaction is a part of normal human behavior. You remind of the radical deaf people who get pissy when you refer to them as having a disability ("NO, We're just DIFFERENTLY ABLED!!!")
I have a pretty introverted personality, but I at least recognize that my social mechanisms aren't normal.
Look at all the scary shit out there; What sane person would subject themselves to that?
The "scary shit" is called "selective bias". You focus on what you want to focus on in order to believe that you're justified in your behavior. What, is the world supposed to be perfect before you think interaction with others is safe?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Are you accusing me of something? Are you some kind of sociopath or something?
Goddamn crazies are everywhere today.
The point being made is not that the CSM is trying to re-shape and change news to suit its agenda.
Actually, the Christian Science church, in recent years, has been very removed from the editorial process.
Their "vetting" is a PASSIVE one - if it contradicts their teachings, it just doesn't get published. They don't try to re-write it. They simply don't publish it. Nor do they advance an agenda. They have their beliefs, they make their biases known from the get-go, so that you can go into the paper knowing full well where they stand.
Honestly, through that viewpoint, I think you get a fairer shake than just about any other news outlet. Not to say it's the best out there, but certainly the fairest, as far as I'm concerned.
(Note: I am not a member of the Christian Science church)
Sorry,
Is it just me or is the "scientific method" these guys employ full of it.
I watched all of three shows, and each of them had incredible experimental flaws in them. If it wasn;t so long ago, I'd recount exactly the flaws I saw, but I forget.
Is it entertaining, perhaps, are they busting myths, no way.
You think other newspapers and media outlets aren't vetted for content? Give me a break. You can't offend the advertisers! You can't criticise Israel. Don't ask tough questions about anything national security realted or you might seem unpatriotic! I swear the white house press corps didn't ask a single challenging question between September 2000 and May 2004. The CSM has provided consistently solid reporting on all kinds of topics and frequently they print stories that are ignored by the other media altogether. Sure they'll never print something critical about the Christian Science church but I don't give a rats @ss about that. It's nice to have a different perspective. A perspective that hasn't been vetted by the church of the almighty dollar. If you want to see real journalism as good as the CSM you won't find it in the US, you'll have to try the Guardian UK, the Sydney Morning Herald, Haaretz, or the Toronto Sun.
-- QED
That may be the case, but your average viewer has an even poorer concept of science, so at least its making people interested in something other that which cute intern is going to sleep with over-endowed doctor on Gray's Anatomy.
Matt (Plasma Physicist, Science Evangelist and Mythbusters Fan)
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Of course they can walk around in relative anonymity. Even Robin Williams can go around without being hounded. There is so much to see and do in SF, and if you think that these guys are anything to attract attention, you clearly have never been to the city.
It's a girl!
Nope.
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
the one that bugged me most recently was the "explosive decompression of an airplane" episode. they were testing the idea that planes will be torn apart by decompression from a bullethole in a window. while they did get some good rushes of wind as a result of the rapid decompression they didn't at all factor in the destructive capabilities of jagged pieces of glass and metal being introduced into an airflow going 500 mph.
as someone who's seen the wrong side of 110 mph in cars and motorcycles, i can attest to the destructive potential of a strong wind. try sitting up on a motorcycle at 130mph. it's not comfortable. then flip your helmet's visor open and say hello to the ground. (not that i was stupid enough to do that).
As I mentioned in a reply to another post, I actually do think that it's a good thing how clear and open their bias is, certainly compared to most news outlets. So yeah, I agree on that. I just find it odd that a church group, who has issues with some portions of modern science (medicine etc.) would be such avid watchers of a science show that they'd do a writeup on its presenters.
On just about every show, these guys do stuff with shop tools without safety glasses, essentially documenting an OSHA violation and broadcasting it.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
For anyone who is even remotely interested, Kari Byron in FHM
It seems to me that when the show started Jamie and Adam had more freedom to do what they wanted.
Also it was very clear that Jamie had an introverted personality and is a smart thinking kind of guy.
Anyhow some of those originals, they spent the WHOLE EPISODE on a single myth and you got to see fascinating detail on what they were trying to do, plus I felt I was learning a little bit - not a lot but a little bit.
Now, it seems to me that with the Mythterns (Kari etc) and the amount of stuff they put in an episode it's all somewhat slickly edited for the masses.
Also the narrator, who I liked originally, he FUCKING REPEATS EVERYTHING THEY SAY! etc, there's an interview with Grant he says "Ok so we need to put the flux capacitor in Jamie's whoo hooo in order to see if X will happen" - then the goddam narrator says "Grant has just told us they need to get that flux capacitor in Jamie's whoo hoo, if he gets this right we will see if X happens"
I KNOW HE JUST TOLD ME YOU FUCKER! >:(
(He also summarises what happened 5 minutes before the commercial break for another 30 seconds after each break)
Why do they have to dumb it down for the lowest common denominator??? (sp?)
The editing makes it so that they break up the myths and split them up across the episode but I find that annoying, I want them put together like the older episodes.
What happened to us seeing Jamie and Adam in a scrap yard looking for things! Sure it's not important but it was interesting damnit.
Also, I feel Jamie is being forced to behave in a way which is not normally him, you could clearly see in around mid season 2 he was somewhat agitated at this and uncomfortable, he's coming out of his skin a little bit now.
Also Adam is NOT as stupid as he's being portrayed, he's a very cluey guy and more outgoing than Jamie but I dunno - he's been turned into the "homer" of the show.
Ultimately a lot of documentaries on discovery suck now and heck I don't even get the full range of discovery over here in Australia.
Docu's used to be slow paced, informative and somewhat quiet, mythbusters didn't exactly follow this formula since it's not a docu but it was simpler and more charming originally.
Now documentaries need to have hardcore music and cgi sections, instead of just showing what is happening or speculating on what might happen from a proffessor no no they have to render something add that boomy music, have the excitable sounding narrator go at it hardcore etc.
(Don't get me wrong, I do love stuff like megastructures and so on, but still the editing seems so damned dramatic for dopey people)
Before anyone says it, I'm 28, not 50 and I still recall the good old days of somewhat intelligent television.
If you knew anything about the CSM, you'd know the vast majority of its editorial staff has nothing to do with the church itself. The CSM has bias, as you note does every publication, but it's not a Christian Science bias, if that makes sense.
And now, a PSA from David Lynch.
Bill Nye is an actual scientist, but his show was a bore! Beakman's World was far more fun.
Circumcision is child abuse.
CSM is one of the best written and researched papers in America.
Being "one of the best written and research papers in America" is sort of like being "one of best students in remedial school" - not exactly high praise.
It would figure that a religious paper is one of the best US papers, though: at least they're only restricted by their religion and not their corporate masters.
What is science? The distinguishing characteristic is that it comes as close as possible to the ideal of "gather data - hypothesize - test hypothesis" feedback loop as possible. There are some additional useful criteria, like using controls, etc., but the feedback loop is the basic element of science.
By this criteria, this is nearly the most scientific show on television, and they've gotten better in the past couple of seasons too. For actually showing the scientific process, I can forgive much.
(The process may not always be perfect, but news flash: If you think every peer-reviewed study has perfect, impeccable controls and rock-solid statistics and complete coverage of the relevant topics, you're on crack. Real experiments often look uncomfortably like a Mythbusters production. No fair holding Mythbusters to semi-mythical ideals when "real" scientists generally don't make it either.)
The other aspect of science is the large body of knowledge and experience that has been built up by the human race by the repeated application of that feedback loop. Sometimes they do OK, sometimes they do poorly; the farther they stray from application of mechanical principles, the worse they tend to do. (On the other hand, they sometimes surprise me; IIRC, they pointed out that sharp pointy things attract lightning better than flat things in one of the lightning episodes, which is something I only covered in calc-based electromagnetism in college and I daresay most people have never been exposed to.)
Yes, they aren't perfect in this department. However, I'm not sure it's possible for them to be perfect. First, I've seen a lot of so-called criticisms that are more wrong than the show is, so for those people even if the show actually improved, they'll believe it's getting worse. Second, by its very nature, it covers an extremely large array of topics, and you're just not going to be able to put together a team of experts in chemistry (all kinds), physics (any kind you'd encounter in normal life), psychology (all kinds), history (all kinds, including the actual building of historical devices), and random misc. (all kinds), and still be able to afford to put it on TV.
Personally, I think they're better than nothing, and doing a decent job, all things considered.
Could they be better in theory? Certainly! Could you get much better in practice? That's much less clear. It's not fair to compare Mythbusters to the show that exists in your head that has an infinite budget and unlimited access to the best experts of all kinds. That's not an alternative.
Ahh, Slashdot, home of the well thought out comment.
I applaud you sir for being
a) Polite
b) Rational
c) Well thought out.
No... wait, None of them... that's right, none of those things.
I mean really, grow up. I'm having a discussion here with a bunch of people who by and large are being perfectly civil and discussing the publication, the church's beliefs and bias in journalism. That you, a little AC, decide that I'm being an unscientific shit is of little concern to me.
But... Christian Science Monitor... isn't Christian Science an oxymoron?
No.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I am reading more on them right at the moment, the about page actually, and indeed I do like the sound of it. Having their own reporters doing the ground work rather than using the news wires is great, need more groups doing that to spread the sources of the news out a bit.
I'm just forever weary of anything that is tied to the church, from days of tagging along with friends to youthgroups which stated that they were non-religious and then having them edge in church thoughts whenever they could. Including the bad ones regarding being against gays and biggotry.
I'm not saying the CSM does any of that, I'm just gun-shy because of prior experiences, and the number of religious people who I've known who like to think and say that they are living a good christian life while at the same time being some of the most homophobic and anti women's rights I've come across.
No it isn't.
Yes it is, Infinity!
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The diagnostic criteria(DSM-IV) for anti-social personality disorder(under which sociopath falls) is:
" 1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another"
How does Jamie meet any of those? Or even come close?
Also, by way of wikipedia:
"In current, clinical, use, psychopathy is most commonly diagnosed using Robert D. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Hare describes psychopaths as, 'intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they cold-bloodedly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret.'"
How does Adam even come close to meeting that definition?
I don't get it
Is that a take on George Carlin's "being stupid should be fatal"?
" all factor in the destructive capabilities of jagged pieces of glass and metal being introduced into an airflow going 500 mph."
So, basically, you wouldn't be happy unless they actually went up in an airplane and did the experiment at 500 knots.
I've got a suggestion. Use the show as a starting point for your own reasoning and thought experiments, and get your own airplane. And TV show.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
What a load of absolute bollocks. They're just normal, average blokes with enough wit and luck to be earning good money doing what they want to do and having fun at the same time.
If the personalities they present to the camera are real, and there's no reason to think otherwise, they show just as much compassion, concern for others and acceptance of personal responsibility as anyone.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
A MB episode is 1 hour. They do these tests over a series of days. WHat do you think they do on the time they aren't taping? Do they maybe... repeat experiments? Yup, as they've publicly stated, they do. But you know what- watching them swipe 500 magnetic strips to test the eelskin wallet would have been bad TV. So they show one or two and move on to something more interesting. Showing 20 hours of tests may be more scientific, but it'd be a boring damn show. I'm happy to know that they do it and just show us representative results.
Oh, and on the Mentos episode- they did check combinations of ingredients, and specifically stated that a combo of the 3 produced the best results.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Not everyone has a burning desire to go out and socialize, not due to fear, but due to apathy. These same people could use your very arguement against you to try to get you to do particle physics, botany, taxidermy, engineering, coding, whatever. Life's goals are not the same for everyone, and it doesn't mean that people are "scared" of things they just plain don't want to do.
Besides, let's face it, given society's obsession with pop stars and actors (and the endless relationships they have that are constantly mentioned), can you really blame someone for wanting to avoid that kind of crap? Endless pseudodrama is... for lack of a nicer term, irrelevent to quite a few people.
But whatever. To each their own.
Heh. Actually, I have a feeling he was speaking for the majority of us (who have replied to your idiocy). I know I felt the same way.
Lots more info on the crew and their history can be found here.
The Discovery Channel used to show quality programming for people who weren't morons. They'd show documentaries that were relevant and informative. Their regular programming was of a top-notch quality, often hosted by experts in various fields. In short, even scientists and academics were often able to learn something from watching the Discovery Channel.
But then they tried to cater to people who came out of a Kansas-style education system. These are people with very little background in science, technology, and mathematics. They're the kind of people who don't understand a single thing about the theory of evolution, but will fight tooth and nail against it because their local fundamentalist religious leaders tell them to do so.
Like it or not, MythBusters is the sort of show they brought in. It tries to pass of a pseudo-science that tends of be educationally lousy, but somewhat entertaining. It wasn't too bad, initially. At least the Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin, for instance, was an expert in his field. But then they moved towards the MythBusters, neither of who have any significant experience in any scientific or engineering fields. What we find now is that their programming is of such a low quality that the only people who learn anything from it are those who are completely ignorant of science.
Just thinking, yeah right!
My motorcycle has no windscreen or fairings and I frequently ride it at 95mph, going with the flow of traffic (well a little faster than the flow:). I can easily flip up my visor partially or completely (sometimes I have to sneeze because I'm sucking in all that pollen). I just kind of lean against the wind a bit, gotta pay attention because if a big truck passed you the pressure disappears and you end up with your face in your handlebars. But otherwise I don't really think it's a big deal. I'm sure 130mph is more serious than 95mph, but I think flipping your visor up while going 130mph is a myth worthy of MythBusters.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
And if you read the paper, you will see that isn't even true any more. Christian Science is a metaphysical religion and doesn't believe that sickness is real. Its members believe, among other things, that sickness is a manifestation of one's thinking. Yet the CSM publishes articles on disease all the time. They cover cancer, AIDS, and all of the other wonderful ways there are to get sick. The paper also publishes articles on research in the possibility of a historical Jesus, theological controversies, and other things which disagree with the teaching of the church. It's actually one of the best papers in the country, and Christian Scientists are about the least annoying Christians you will ever meet.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
my motorcycle has a minimal windscreen and yes i've flipped my visor open up to 100 mph. but i only know from popping my torso up from a tuck at 130 that the forces were considerably greater than i've experienced at 100.
Prescription glasses made of polycarbonate are fine instead. I work for an engineering department and the rule is safety glasses at all time in labs, unless you wear normal glasses. Believe me, our building manager is a stickler, he wouldn't let us do it if it weren't kosher (we are a government institution and all that).
You'll notice when there's a larger hazard they either put it behind a shield or don more protective gear. However for normal things like soldering or machining, standard glasses are fine.
Also you have to understand that OSHA regs are to protect employees from employers primarily. It's to make sure your employer can't force you to work in unsafe conditions without proper gear. They don't mandate you follow them yourself if you are self employed (which Jamie is). The reason they force OSHA stuff on us isn't because they are worried the cops will come and arrest us for not following it, but because they worried we'd get hurt and sue them and/or they'd get fined.
The show's not called ScienceBusters. Neither of them are portrayed as scientists or experts in science. They are, just as the intro says, special effects guys, which means they're jacks of all trades who know enough science and engineering (more engineering) to do their jobs well. And the show isn't about science. It's about testing the plausibility of urban myths, which they do a pretty good job at. For me, half the fun is watching them go through the process of building and testing their machines.
The other half is watching shit blow up. Now THAT'S entertainment!
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
at my local supermarket (Diamond Heights Safeway). He looks exactly like he does on TV (doh...).
Cute? Yea. (Probably not a real red head)
But if you notice, she never really does much of anything. Boooring.
Now Scotty, she's the hottie. She can weld, wrench, machine, and I betcha she can ride a bike. She has more ink than Kari to boot.
That's a real woman.
militant gun owning 'liberal'
Adam is a props man. If you look at his credits, that's primarily what he's done. For example a number of the devices in Bicentennial man are his designs and constructions. He's not really "special effects" as most people think of it. He's done that too, but his main thing is design work. Hence, build jobs are his thing. Jamie is the gadget guy, that's what M5 is known for. Their 7-up attack machine being my favourite. When someone needs a new functional device made that hasn't existed before, Jamie is the kind of guy they seek out.
That's one of the reasons that Adam seems to be 2nd place to Jamie for a lot of the things they do is it's not his specialty. Heck, that's why they shoot the show at M5. This is the kind of stuff they do anyhow. A company approaches them and says "We want something that can do this," for example a vending machine that can attack people. They then set about scavenging that together and making it work. Mythbusters is just about applying those skills to a myth, and doing it on a more limited budget.
I personally think it's not a bad combo both personality wise and skill wise. Jamie on his own would probably make for a real boring show (he apparently had them get Adam on board for that reason) but you need someone who's got applied problem solving skills like that to make it happen. Also in addition to making the show more fun, Adam does do really well when they need some kind of setup designed and constructed.
Shame on me for saying without supporting link, but iirc if a person is rendered suddenly unconscious while standing, or is shot dead instantly (etc) they will fall "forward" instead of backwards, though most of the momentum is downward.
But while we're at nitpicking the nitpickers... The purpose of Mythbusters isn't science itself, but to engage people in science. To entertain foremost, but there's a background hope your 8 to 18 year old kid will say "Waittaminute" at something, look at it, and do their own analysis at some level. No I don't mean load the back yard up with bottle rockets and send the beanie baby to the neighbors (IE the raccoon myth) but they actually have lots of things where you can look and say "I think I can make a better device than that" or "But what happens if THIS factor is accounted for?" or or or.... For a kid, that can be a career deciding moment. And at worst, it makes them more aware and willing to research. How many of us haven't seen the death ray links both from the show and hobbyists (linked from /. articles, of course!! Like http://www.solardeathray.com/ ) and said "Hrmmmm...."?? I know I'd like to try building my own (but knowing my glue skills, I'll set me on fire, and the Britney Spears plush will survive. If we ever want ET life to touch down here, I'd best not do that.)
Also, I must agree, 90% of the time the scope of their intentions is misunderstood either through us not looking, or them not presenting. Or both. I'm not praising their science, I'm praising their intentions. And to be honest, I'd be honored to meet EITHER of the hosts, or even "The Build Crew" (KARI!!! but the rest are neat too) and engage in a 5 minute(+) discusion.. I suspect there's lots to these guys we don't get to see on TV.
We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
Good Lord. Relax. Its a TV show not a doctoral thesis.
Everything about the way they produce and edit the show says edutainment. Also keep in mind each one hour show (minus commercials) covers between three to five different "myths". Their accuracy of measurement is dependent on the topic. In your example, we have a "fun" myth with low danger. Plus we have a high probablity of it looking cool on tape whether it works or not, which it probably will since the internet has several videos. I'd say "I think that was about twice as high" is a reasonable margin of error in that scenario.
Second, numbers and graphs don't mean much to most normal people. Take the "Will driving fast on a washboard make the ride smoother?" segment. They had some very good data from an accelerameter that actually had them questioning their perceptions. They also had a pyramid of wine glasses filled with water. The splashing water is easier for a normal person to translate into something they can relate to. A "horizontal acceleration of blah point blah blah m/s^2" means little, while most people have some idea the amount of force it takes to shake some water out of a glass (even if they don't know what force is).
In fact I thought they did a pretty good job of using the scientific method in that segment. When they got data they didn't expect they refined their experiment to eliminate variables and try to narrow in on what was *generally* happening.
Also I think when you hear someone mention science its usually Adam. Its safe to say that Adam doesn't always think things through. My guess is that what Adam usually means is he is *using* science, not *doing* science. Most people do not differentiate using scientific knowledge and using the scientific method. The show often uses scientific knowledge to make educated guesses about what will happen. Basically this is used to narrow "likely" outcomes. They use a fair amount of scientific knowledge for safety reasons as well. I'll even grant you that probably a good deal of the "using science" is some anonymous producer calling up a subject matter expert.
I will grant that they are taking short cuts. However, off hand I can't think of an episode where Jaime has stated that they were publishing their results in a peer reviewed journal.
Its just a publicity push for the new series starting on sunday here in the UK (and the rest of europe I would guess)
[The Universe] has gone offline.
Who the f*** cares?
Come up editors, if I want this kind of "news" I'd read cosmopolitan.
I must admit, I've enjoyed watching the show from time to time... however all too often they make a big production out of something that could have been disproven from simple logic. Take for example a recent episode where they were testing the myth that if you licked a stamp and stuck it to a helicopter's rotor-blade, would it unbalance the blades and render the helicopter uncontrollable? Granted it was a simple test to complete (cost the whole whopping cash for a stamp and fuel to start up a helicopter). When in simple logic, one could simply point out the large amount of Bug debris picked up by the rotor blades. I'm not seein a whole lotta heli's goin down in Florida after a massive mosquito massacre.
When the article said that one of the two guys was a runaway, it really surprised me to find out that it was Jamie. Adam seems like the wild crazy person who would run away from home, while Jamie seems like the strict and careful and proper type of person who would never attempt such a thing.
Respect the laws of physics, for the laws of physics have no respect for you.
You have clearly never set foot in London's East End.... Of course the East End way of mangling the english language is more elegant than the American one. The creative logic behind words like 'Bristols' always makes me laugh.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
That wasn't a small defect, it was the whole bloody cargo door! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Fligh t_811.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
I have a PhD in chemistry, and I have learnt stuff from mythbusters. I now know that the terminal velocity of a penny is lower than that of a human, and that high velocity rounds shatter when they are fired into water.
The show is entertaining, and has a science flavour. It is better to have light-weight science that people watch, than heavy-weight stuff that only the scientific elite understand. I see it as a kids show, meant to recruit the next generation of scientists. Sure the science is simplistic, but at least there is some science on TV.
I suspect grandparent was thinking of the Aloha Air accident rather than the UA one.
As I recall, the Aloha Air accident is thought to have been caused by stress fractures initially which released a small break-away area of skin, but due to corrosion and further strees around rivets it basically unzipped half the aircraft's roof. A stewardess was sucked out, but the aircraft (or rather what was left of it) made an otherwise safe landing, I don't recall if anybody else was lost in the accident, I don't think so.
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
"Most fans of the MythBusters would agree that the two hosts of the show, Adam and Jamie, are 'diametrically opposed in every aspect of their lives'.
One's a clean-cut professional cop who plays it by the rules. The other's a wild rookie who'll use every trick in the book to get to the truth!
I agree. It's like the current generation of MySpace users... They put their entire life on the web, and thinks that there's something wrong with those who like a little privacy. These are the same people who don't mind that Google has information about most of what you do online and don't know what sensitive information is.
They're clearly the Oscar and Felix of myth busting
I would have said more the Tim Taylor and Al Borland
Actually, they did cover the guy who originally made Survivor about the game theory of his game.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Water is Wet!
Is it? Perhaps that's a new myth to be busted!!
What is a "Mythbuster"? Is it a comic book? It would help if this article made some mention of who the hell James and Adam might be. A video game? A TV show?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Perhaps you can click the link and find out!
It's like sex, except I'm having it!
RC Car Action (Yes, no matter how much you claim you despise RC cars I know you've owned a copy before) ran an interview with Jamie last summer that was very interesting. It documented just how much commercial robotics work he actually performs for Hollywood as well as the military. And that he used to own a tourist diving business in the Carribean. And that degree in Russian studies (shocker! - right...).
A few months ago I saw an interview with Jamie, in which he said that he had been approached to do Mythbusters as a solo gig.
He said, "I started to think about it, and realized, 'Hey, I'm pretty boring.'"
So he said he'd do it of Adam was his co-host.
However well they do or do not get along on the set, they KNOW they make a great on air pairing.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Scientifically is in quotes because they essentially ran one test, watched soda splatter all over the place, and left it at that. Actual experimentation would involve multiple runs to confirm results, actual measurements (versus "I think that was about twice as high"), and, oh, I don't know, science.
So because you only saw them do one test means they couldn't possibly have done more? Remember, this is an editied show, it's not live... they don't just turn on the cameras and they have an hour to do whatever... I'd be willing to bet that they probably did run multiple tests and measured them. I mean, did you notice when they said things like "I think that was about twice as high" there was a scale on the wall? So maybe, I dunno, Adam remarked (while doing the experiment) that it went about twice as high and then they went back and look at the data before declaring a myth busted/not busted/plausable or whatever.
They didn't bother checking to see if they were matching the amount of the ingredients they were testing to actual Diet Coke. They didn't bother measuring the actual result. They didn't bother combining ingredients to see if there was a combined effect. They didn't bother doing just about anything that might be considered scientfic.
What because they didn't show a few hundred tests of Adam doing experiments they didn't do it? That would be an incredibly boring show...
Plus they repeatedly claim to be doing actual science on the show. They run clip shows showing "cut footage" to try and prove that they're doing "actual science". But they're not. Their science is barely grade school level. You might be able to pass your 8th grade science class running "experiments" of the quality they do, but that's about it.
Have you been to the studio and seen the process they go through for each show? (Disclaimer: neither have I) Just because you see the results and not the entire process doesn't mean they didn't do it. Of course maybe I'm wrong, maybe they do just fly by the seat of their pants. They have stated that a lot more work goes on behind the scene's (Like running a lot more tests than just what you see on tv) but instead of just trusting them we should make wild accusations about their findings and their process.
The thing I really like is that they are not above admiting they were wrong, they routinely revisit myths based on feedback from the viewers. Some people say oh, you should have tested it this way so they go back and do it. The primary thing you have to remember though is that it's a TV SHOW... it's entertainment. Most of the myths you could probably bust before they even start with a few formula's and show on paper that it's impossible... but that wouldn't make good TV, neither would showing them analyze all of their data and record all of the tests.
is that MB is one of my 7yo son's favorite shows. He likes to learn stuff, he loves when they blow up stuff, and he is ecstatic when they put up a "fight" with each other...
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Both Jamie and Adam, and the whole crew for that matter, do have a lot of fun. You can tell, also, that Adam and Jamie, if not hate, don't like each other. I think it is that tension that makes it interesting.
Their "science" however, certainly ther techniques, are kind of hit or miss. Sometimes they do something and you say, "Wow, I wouldn't have thought of that," sadly, most of the time they miss some fundimental points. Like the propeller driven jet pack thing, watching it "work" it was obvious the thing was losing power in loose belts, and they never addressed increasing the gear ratio to the props to generate more thrust and seeing how much the motor could drive the system.
Grant Imahara is probably the smartest guy there, but Jamie has boat loads more practical experience.
Kari, well, lets be honest, she's cute, smart, artistic, like to blow sh*&^%t up, and has a nice laugh, what's not to love?
I'll grant you that they got that one right. I've shot silhouette competition for years and I've seen hundreds of thousands of demonstrations that it takes .77 lb/sec of momentum (minimum, 1 is better) to push a 55 pound steel plate an inch under real-world competition conditions. The notion of a bullet blowing someone off their feet is just silly. (Yes, target reaction can be severe due to nerve trauma and associated muscle reactions, but that's not the same thing.)
Yet, I find it irritating that they do so much with firearms and understand so little. I've seen them try to use a kinetic bullet puller on rimfire ammunition; that's very stupid and a tad dangerous. I saw them try the old "frozen ice bullet" thing without ever mentioning the word "sabot"; yes, it's a myth but they could have made it work, after a fashion, if they knew anything about guns. The "shooting into water" segment was just silly; there are water tanks constructed specifically for bullet recovery and the specs on bullet penetration in water are pretty easy to obtain.
Conclusion? It's mostly just entertainment.
It's unfortunate that, in this society, quiet + intellegent = "lack of social skills". Sometimes, if your natural curiosity allows you to, over time, develop a broad knowledge on a variety of subjects, it can be very difficult not to come across as "aloof" as you put it. Here is the problem.
To make such a leap on that basis alone is prejudicial - plain and simple.
If an obviously intellegent person tries to explain something that the person he's talking to already knows, he will often assume he's being "condescending" because "smart people lack social skills"
If the same person assumes you know something that you don't, then he's being "aloof", "pompus", or a "know-it-all".
Point is, none of us are psychic. We are all prone to make these type of errors. However, if an average person does it, it's a faux pax at most and generally not taken as indicitive of a deep-seated personality disorder.
Now, let a person go through life facing that kind of prejudice, and they just might start to wall people off over time.
Jamie reminds me of me in a lot of ways...and I've fought hard to break the "intorvert" mold, I even took up storytelling at one point to get me used to interacting with a large group of people, but there are circles of people out there that just won't give you a chance. Sadly, the best course of action in those cases is to just "keep quiet" so as not to expose yourself to their judgment.
==
on a related note, sorry to hear that he and Adam apparantly don't get along. I also think it's an unfair characterization that Adam lacks the basic skills. Compared to Jamie's more methodical nature, it might appear so, but there are a couple of times where he came up with a better design than Jamie as I recall.
Those guys have to coolest job in the world, and I hope it continues on.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
See? See how he lashes out at those who question the creepy way in which he was raised? Total freak-job. Probably has all sorts of weird kinks (not that there is anything wrong with that) and will end up desiring a sex-change before his 40th birthday.
But other than that, home school is great! You'll never have to worry about scoring with the hot girl in your science class 'cause she's your sister.
Blar.
did anyone else notice that, while the entire truck was gone, the 4 tires were still there, not even popped?
I have actually noticed a few times lately where the narrator will pronounce words like this differently during the same episode. I recall a recent one I saw where he said "meehtane" a couple of times in the intro of a segment, then "mehthane" once during an explanation of how someone's plan is going to work, and then "meethane" again later in the episode.
-- OpenVerse Visual Chat: http://openverse.com
I'd imagine you hear a lot more of it. UK and Australia have a combined population of (60 + 20 =) 80 million whereas the USA is 300 million. I don't know where Canada's 30 million would fit into things, since they're pronunciation is sometimes in agreement with USA and sometimes with UK. Or other countries that speak (UK) English regularly, like parts of India.
I wonder if the English language is going to become more homogenized as time goes on or if local differences will become more exaggerated. In the USA, the settlement by English-speakers has been rapid and recent so there's only some vague accents people can pick out (Boston, "the South", rural Minnesota, "valley girl" Californian, urban, NYC, and the generic neutral-ish "tv broadcaster" accent of denver or phoenix) and so as time goes on, local areas should have time to develop a more distinctive, unique local accent. And on the other hand, there's globalization and the internet and all that communication going on which should decrease differences. It reminds me of something I read about Newfoundland French.
It's a small world. I'd imagine that the set of slashdot readers who homeschool is relatively small. :) We started homeschooling this year.
I have the same opinion about TV shows. VERY few are worth watching. I have found "How It's Made" to be interesting - if a little light on content.
I'm holding on to every issue of Make until my kids are old enought to do the projects with me. I can't wait!
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Together, they fight crime and rescue tree-bound kittens.
I love Mythbusters, but I always forgot who's who. Which one wears the beret?
-Rich
I remember that episode and it was Jamie, who grew up in a farm and knows guns, who scolded Adam for doing that. Their showing that must have been exactly for showing it's dangerous. When they do something that's truly dangerous with guns or explosives they always call an expert.
I think the most valuable lesson one gets from the Mythbusters is that one needs not be an expert to do some thinking. True, anybody could look up in a table to see how long a bullet travels in water. But how were those data obtained in the first place? That's the "scientific" value of the show. When a new field is being explored, there are no experts and one must invent new ways to test things.
Either all that or, you know, they did all that but stretching one episode to cover 24 weeks of 1 hour testing segments could get pretty boring. You know, like they already covered on the "Myths Revisited" episode. The clip show you talk about is still television, and still has to bring in ratings. They're not going to make the clip show, write off that it usually is anyway, a bunch of number crunching. People won't watch that. At least, not the majority of the audience.
I'm not claiming they're the most scientific of all...but they are pretty damn knowledgable when it comes to engineering and engineering is largely trial and error. You don't get to their level in their fields (each taking on very large clients before doing mythbusters) without acknowledging the scientific method. Unfortunately some guy in a beret comparing data sets doesn't make very entertaining television, and so that stuff either gets cut, or never filmed at all. And exploding cement trucks get put in instead.
Still, at best, I would say the Mythbusters are the Jesse James and Tuttles (OCC) of their genre...whatever it is. Sure Jesse James and the Tuttles make beautiful works of their own kind (hot rods and choppers, respectively), but their approaches are completely barbaric. Some of the best choppers take YEARS to build, and the creators never get a show. Why? Because no one wants to watch 6 years of building one bike, no matter how much they might like the show.
For those lacking televisions, internet tubes, and/or cable, here's a definition for you: Mythbusters, a television show hosted by two men, Adam and Jamie, who explore urban legends, examine common misconceptions, and very often blow things up. They seldom bust actual myths, so one is unlikely to view on their program a debunking of monotheism, an exploration of the romantic ideal of love, a deep dive into the faults of Creationism, or an examination of whether our government makes us more or less secure, but they often assemble clever gadgets from things like rubber bands and duct tape and welded bits of metal, so they are usually entertaining.
Well the way I deal with tailgaters may be considered a bit extreem:
:-)
1) Notice tailgater (and by tailgater I mean, I can't see their hood, much less lights, sometimes not even the dash).
2) Follow algorithm below
{Tap brakes lightly with left foot, not decelerating at all.;}
if (driverFailsToBackOff==1) {no brake, just off the gas;}
if (driverHonks==1 || driverFailsToBackOff==1) {open sunroof; look for ammo; confirm (lack of) finger print carrying capacity of ammo; toss out sunroof;}
Best ever, I was coming home from a paintball game, so I tossed some of the paint out the window. All their wipers did was make it impossible to see through the windshield and they had to pull over and stop
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
That is why the show is so great. You have two completely opposite personalities struggling to come to a common goal. I too am a person that is quite anti-social. The fact that I am married baffles me sometimes because I think back to when she and I met and I have no idea who I was when I got up the nerve to ask her out. It just isn't like me to be that 'brave'.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
But... Christian Science Monitor... isn't Christian Science an oxymoron?
Do you still leave a nightlight on hoping to ward off the creature that lives under your bed too?
To automatically take the position that as soon as some one utters the word "christian" that it can only mean inquisition mindsets and tactics just goes to show that you're as dogmatic as those you proclaim to be against.
Good job. We're proud of you.
Are those the ones that turn into robots when they land? Because I think we definitely need more of those!
Just junk food for thought...
The force of the aerodynamic drag is almost doubled at 130mph vs 95mph.
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
I started in home schooling in the 2nd grade and went all the way to graduation. I didn't go to a 4 year college but instead worked for a couple years before going to SW Tech College for computer networking, graduated with honors. I took every optional class I could, tutored for several classes, and was the assistant teacher for Linux/Unix class. I am now going back to MATC Madison for MS .NET Certificate (just starting this semester).
About the only problem I've had as a home schooled kid relating to public-schooled kids is getting that 4 year pattern figured out (freshman, junior, senior, and whatever, still haven't).
The other big problem is when trying to get into college they want a transcript from highschool, something we neglected to keep up during my homeschooling (Note to all Home Schooling parents out there, MAKE AND KEEP A TRANSCRIPT FOR YOUR KID!).
I'm willing to admit my education was lacking in some places and better in others, my main weakness is higher math (beyond Algebra), and early 80's rock bands, but for the most part I've been able to get by.
The biggest thing about Home Schooling is that it teaches kids to Learn. Many times in home-schooling, when a kid asks their parent about something it's used as an opportunity to learn researching and to find out for themselves (with parents assistance, but still the kid doing a majority of the research). Instead of answering with a negative my parents would often grab the dictionary or encyclopedia and we'd start researching. Many of my home schooled friends have had similar experiences, where an interest or a question is used as the basis for several weeks of research and fact-finding. One family I know of went so far as to open up a mini-restaurant in their house to teach their kids all the responsibilities that go along with owning and operating a business, the kids took care of everything from ordering supplies to budgeting to taxes to making the menu.
I wouldn't trade home schooling for anything and if I ever do get married and have kids I will home school them as well.
Erik of Ekedahl
DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Spelling:
Aluminum
US:
Ah-loo-min-um
UK:
Ah-loo-min-ee-um
Would you like more?
Please turn in your nerd card on the way out the door. Obviously you got it under false pretenses if you don't know what "Mythbusters" is.
You really should read some of their articles. Start on their Iraq section if that war interests you. I have a ton of respect for CSM as a newspaper. They have far more original content than most papers. They come off as extremely balanced (they don't have a conservative or liberal bias).
I'm an athiest and have no interest in the Christian Science church (I was raised Methodist). If I'm able to read their articles without a problem, I don't think anyone else would have an issue.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
> my understanding that filtering alcohol in this manner basically ruins the filter in just 1-2 passes
Not in my experience. I replaced the filters every couple months, and this was for a gang that went through at least 3 liters/week (avg 2 filtration passes for each bottle). They seemed work just as well at the end of the cycle as at the beginning - and believe me, the cheap stuff we started with will burn nasal passages from across the room, so it's NOT a subtle effect!
YMMV, and I'm not affiliated with anyone, I just knew a lot of thrifty drinkers when I lived in Hollywood...
Perfectly Normal Industries
I guess the fact that you took the time to make a clear and coherent reply is supposed to be evidence of you...ah...not caring?
You might as well add "overdramatic, pseudo-intellectual, temper-tantrum-throwing shit" to your resume.
I doubt there is porn of this hottie. But a for those of you that wanna peak of her NEARLY naked... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykhSLNlx3n0&mode=re lated&search=
"The irony when tending a flock of sheep is the dogs you put in place to protect them are genetically mutated wolves"
Often, much is lost on the cutting room floor- Jamie and Adam perpetually complain about just that and talk about how they had done a thousand runs of something and the editors made it look like they had an epiphany or something.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I had some bozo tailgating me at night once, slowing down
to let him pass and happing the brakes didn't get the hint across.
So I put the van in reverse, the automatic trans has a lockout that
wont let it actually engage, but the white reverse lights came on
and he backed off for good that time.
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
I have to agree that this "story" amounts to little more than free publicity. It's not news by any stretch of the imagination. Hell, even I knew this already, and I'm not a die-hard Mythbusters fan like so many Slashdotters seem to be. I mean I love the show, but I've only seen about 4 episodes due to schedules and whatnot, and it's very obvious that these guys are complete opposites.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
They forgot a few words in the Adam segment. The quote SHOULD be:
This post is humor.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Adam has mentioned a wife and kids on the show, though.
Could they be better in theory? Certainly! Could you get much better in practice? That's much less clear. It's not fair to compare Mythbusters to the show that exists in your head that has an infinite budget and unlimited access to the best experts of all kinds. That's not an alternative.
In fact, that's my main complaint with Mythbusters- they rarely have the time/and/or/budget to actually do a myth in depth. Personally, for instance, I'd like to see them get a hold of the high school science teacher who claimed to have built the rocket car- and tried his version, which was a rail car that leaped the track due to badly designed breaks and caused a collapse in an old mineshaft- thereby *perfecly* replicating the meta-myth of a 67 Impala embedded in a mountain.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Did you just feel like posting a semi-coherent 1-liner or is there a point? Of course OSHA is to prevent workplace injuries. Duh. However that doesn't mean that our employer isn't forcing us to comply. We get in trouble if we don't. I'm not saying anyone minds, I'm just saying that's the way it is. There's many things that my employer forces me to do (if I want to keep my job). Most of them are things I'd do anyhow, but that doesn't make my terminology incorrect. For example they, or I suppose I should say we since us computer guys are the ones responsible, force the use of good passwords. No problem, I use good passwords anyhow, but I'm still forced to do so in this case as the systems will reject bad ones. At home, it's purely optional.
So don't get all huffy or self righteous with me, I know full well why there are OSHA regs and, as I noted, they are designed to protect employees form employers. However, when you work for the government at least, they will make sure you follow the regs. It's not a bad thing, just the way it is.
I don't think you would need to. When you have 100 proof alchohol it is 50% alchohol by volume. It isn't like putting salt into water where it saturates at a fraction of the volume of the water. So you couldn't be filtering this out (where is the filter going to hide that much volume), although you could be loosing some to evaporation during the filtering process. It would be interesting to measure the exact amount, but as there wasn't an obvious change in volume, it definately wasn't much.
What the fuck is going on? Now we publish articles written by a bunch of assholes that beleives such shit as the existence of a god, and not happy with that (enough reason to diserve a very painfull dead), call themselves "scientists"?
It's great to see that your enlightened belief system has led you to the tolerant, compassionate moral high ground.
I can handle double. double of almost nothing is just a little something. I get blown all over the road on my bike, it's only a little scary for beginners but really you can't fall off that easily.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Why is this on slashdot?This is certainly not news for nerds,or news that matters
Did you watch the commercial for that episode, or the episode? They ran a number of different control tests, testing different combinations of materials. They built a scale on the side of the building to measure the height of the jet.
I don't know what you were watching, but it wasn't the same episode I was watching. Or maybe you're just not so much with the clever. Not sure...
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
You start out your post with a false assumption that it is the quiet + intelligent that equates to a label of "lack of social skills". I would argue it is just the quiet. As a matter of fact the intelligent probably helps with "social skills" because if used properly it allows you to say things that people might actually want to listen to.
I work in a very technical job that involves supporting the sales force. I explain things to people all the time that they already know. They do not feel that I am condesending because I do not give my explainations in a condesending way. I also explain stuff that goes right over their head but in those cases I take the time to back up and explain the concepts they may not have grasped. I find that if someone asks you a technical question they generally want to understand the answer and will work very hard with you and explain exactly what points or concepts they do not get. Sometimes this is very difficult but they usually see it through to the end and you both come out better off.
According to you that makes me a "normal person" (which I guess means I lose all my geek-cred and 1337-ness) because our customers, engineers, and sales force have not shown me any indication that they think I have a deep-seated personality disorder. So I guess I will get out of the business of life-critical product design and into something like fry-cooking before I kill someone.
My point is that it is the shyness and lack of "social skills" that makes you say or do the wrong thing and give people the wrong impression about your personality. I like to think of myself as being reasonably intelligent and quite a few people have told me I am a down-right genius at times (on the other side of that coin, my wife puts my IQ somewhere between potato and premature rot-grub but we already know she is a poor decision maker because she married me!). If I were shy and withdrawn those same sales guys would probably kick me in the nuts, but they would also kick me in the nuts if I was as dumb as a box of rocks. It is not like stupid and shy gets a pass, if anything they are picked on more (cause you never know when you will need the smart guy).
Maybe you are getting the same "pass" that the normal people are getting, but are too socially inept to realize it. I mean your ID is "StressGuy", I am guessing you are a little high strung.
I also do not want to be overly critical and disuade you from posting your opinions on any topic because I or someone like me won't like it. I applaud your decision to take up storytelling and force yourself into a social situation. After you do enough things like that and talk with us "normal people", you will realize that we are all in this together. I think you would honestly be surpised at what people listen to and remember. There are a few people out there that enjoy making other people miserable, but everyone else is more likely than not to help you out if it does not put them out too much. Some are actually even nice (not me, but other people)!
Actually you sound like a pretty great individual with a lot to offer, but no one will know unless you develop the social skills and personality to share it with the rest of the world.
Aha! When did YOU stop beating your wife? If you say you're not in denial, you PROVE that you ARE!
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
"is a very sad commentary on the world"
No. It's a very sad commentary on one person's world view.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
No more crazy than what some atheist scientists come up with...
Sure it seems like it might be a relatively decent publication, but:
a) It is a religious publication which includes religious sections
I'm assuming your opposition to mentions of religion is your belief that are closed-minded, and therefore you don't want to read any section of a newspaper with religious parts.
There's the oxymoron.
Who knows WHO came up with the idea of the "don't try this at home" disclaimer. But I know one thing: I'd bet good money that even if it WASN'T Jamie and Adam's idea, some lawyer with Discovery would have insisted on it before the show would ever be allowed to air.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
I've known Adam for a long time. He's a great guy, funny, very outgoing, pretty much exactly what you see on the show. Very talented, especially when he's working on his passion, gun/prop stuff. Personally, I feel like the show would be more interesting if Jamie wasn't in it, as I think he's pretty boring. That's just me.
What has been written about Adam being a "props guy" is only partially true. He's an artist, the things he works on for the company are just part of what he does. He's a great tv personality, if he were to find the right vehicle. Mythbusters isn't quite it, I think he knows it, and I think he's chaffing under it.
AC
Moral is SHIT, I have ethics, but no moral.
And being tolerant and compassionate is NOT A GOOD THING.
Christians have poissoned life for years with their compassion. Aristoteles considered Compassion to be a very dangerous form of morbosity, and he was right.
May i recommend you to read The Antichrist by Friedrich Nietzsche?. That will surely enlighten you.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
"but they are pretty damn knowledgable when it comes to engineering and engineering is largely trial and error. You don't get to their level in their fields (each taking on very large clients before doing mythbusters) without acknowledging the scientific method."
Bollocks. Engineering is not 'largely trial and error'. Often some of the complex interactions are fine tuned by designed experiments, but the basic concepts are anlytically derived.
For example when we set up the road springs for a new car we know what ride frequencies we want, we know the moments of inertia, and the mass, and desired ground clearance, so we can work out the spring rates and lengths. Where's the trial and error? Admittedly we'll order in 3 sets of springs around that calculated sweet spot, so the ride and handling guys have something to play with, but typically the final choce will be within 3% of the calculated rate.
You might as well add "overdramatic, pseudo-intellectual, temper-tantrum-throwing shit" to your resume.
Oh, I did, right below the part where I added "At least I never post insulting comments on Slashdot annonymously".
But then, my resume is full of crap that has no place in any resume, ever!
The reason why I replied as I did though, was because he stated: "I'd argue that anybody who doesn't have an adversion to socializing in todays society is mal-adjusted. Look at all the scary shit out there; What sane person would subject themselves to that?"
That sounds like someone who has some real issues with people and being out and about, not just someone who enjoys being inside.
The example that springs to mind is mobile phones a fuel (gas) stations. Any electrical engineer in the HAE industry will simply declare that the phone should not be there as it has the potential to act as an ignition source, the reasoned proof of this is long and will not make good tv. But showing a ringing phone does not ignite a fuel (gas) air mixture doesn't prove the general case that phones cant ignite fuel vapours.
I find it quite interesting how some people so devoutly believe in the oddest things. For example, i know some very devout Christians, and I don't think I've heard them say that Jesus is the son of God with as much conviction as some people have insisted that cellphones are hazardous around the fumes at a petrol station. What you say is true--if you try to do somehting 100 or 1000 (or even 1000000) times and only once manage to make it happen it means that thing is POSSIBLE, and if you never manage to do the thing it doesn't mean it isn't possible. However, it DOES prove that such a thing is so improbable it doesn't warrant such a reaction.
The cellphone-at-a-petrol station is a perfecrt example. Yes, Mythbusters did NOT prove cellphones were not a hazard, however they DID prove that the (mis)reported incidents are so highly unlikely that it does NOT warrant the hyteria around the myth. "ANY electrical engineer in the HAE industry will simply declare that the phone should not be there"? Well, *I* am one electrical engineer who will say such a restriction is ridiculous. There are countless other things that would WAY more likely cause ignition of fuel vapours that happen all the time. When you start your car the solenoid can spark. The acrylic sweater you might wear on a cold, dry winter day could create static electricity--and if you are in the habit of locking the filler open and moving about your car to, say, clean the windscreen, then going back to remove the filler....spark....boom. Locking fillers open or propping them open with the fuel cap...THAT is what should be banned, NOT cellphones.
Please get this straight...cellphones are NOT intrinsically safe however there IS a VERY remote chance of ignition, but they are NOT any more dangerous than any of a wide variety of other non-intrinsically-safe electrical devices. Your iPod is just a "dangerous" at the pump as your cellphone. The electrical acceesories BUILT RIGHT INTO YOUR CAR--like the radio or the headlights or the like--are just as dangerous. Your macbook or dell or thinkpad's battery is order of magnitude more likely to randomly explode.
And you know what makes a cellphone not intrinsically safe? It isn't the EMR energy from the transmitted signal. It isn't the backlight in the screen. It isn't the ringer. IT IS THE BATTERY. ALL reports of cellphones igniting in ANY situation has been attributed to a problem with the battery--defective charging circuitry allowing cells to overcharge, cheap aftermarket batteries, intermittent contact at the conductors and so on. Your best bet in trying to cause a cellphone to explode at a gas station would be to slam it against the fuel fillerso it smashes and the case cracks and the metal bits of the battery short and spark. There ARE intrinsically-safe phones for exceptionally hazardous locations (confined spaces with gas fumes, dusty locations like flour mills, etc) and the single biggest thing that makes them intrinsically safe is to completely seal the battery in its compartment so it cannot come dislodged and so the electrical contacts are not exposed to open air.
Anyways, that bit on Mythbusters was very amusing. Perfectly scientific? I'm sure it wasn't. It was just entertaining and IMHO did in fact proove it was an extremely improbable phenomenon. It's something like when they dropped a lit cigarette in a big trail of fuel and showed it doesn't work like hollywood were it flares up and folloes the trail--the cigaretter is too cool and the fuel too wet to allow for ignition. Mythbusters isn't about scientific proof...it is about entrtainment and, for the lack of a better phrase, "common sense". Along the way they try to explain the "why" but the point is the entertainment, and to say "this idea is so far out and PRACTICALLY unachievable that this myth is busted".
I completely agree with you here. When they blew up the cement truck with a load of concrete in the back, and completely obliterated it, I was giddy for at least half an hour. I have never seen anything before turn from a large heavy metal object into virtually nothing, in the blink of an eye. Even standing over a mile away there was a noticable jump by the crew. I'd pay to see this one in real life for sure!
Scott