Slashdot Mirror
President Obama To Appear On Mythbusters
Muondecay writes "President Obama will be featured in the December 8th MythBusters episode, 'Archimedes Solar Ray,' during which he will challenge Adam and Jamie to revisit an ancient and somewhat controversial myth: Did Greek scientist and polymath Archimedes set fire to an invading Roman fleet using only mirrors and the reflected rays of the sun during the Siege of Syracuse? This is part of a White House effort to highlight the importance of science education."
I know Obama is a messianic figure for some, but I don't think even he can change the reality that this just never happened. I don't understand why so many people seem to have invested so much in this obvious myth being true.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Does slashdot do politics?
Is it free?
I am surprised it was him myth-busting his country of birth.
*pours tea over everything and yet fails to comprehend what the Boston Tea Party was about*
Did Greek scientist and polymath Archimedes set fire to an invading Roman fleet using only mirrors and the reflected rays of the sun during the Siege of Syracuse?
- probably, but you can count on this: if UN existed at that time, they would have banned any of this 'Sun Blotting or Reflecting'.
You can't handle the truth.
They're doing Archimedes solar ray AGAIN? Aren't we up to three already (the original myth and two revisits)? Obviously I think it is fun that Obama will be on the show but frankly aside from that I really don't want to see that same tired Myth for a third time...
It's the new first.
when Slashdot posted the non-story about the Googlers fighting over the decor of their airplane.
...was to debunk the myth that a black man can't be elected president.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
He was Sicilian.
Next up, a popular request myth from the Southern part of the country: Was President Obama born in Kenya? Oh I hope they make a joke about that...
This is part of a White House effort to highlight the importance of science education.
Or just look fun and popular while really being a complete douche and awful president.
See also: Clinton playing the sax.
I don't really have a problem with the president appearing on random TV shows a few times during their term, but I would really like Obama to spend less time being cool and more time fixing shit.
More info here. Taco should just hire me.
...go hand in hand.
I remember watching somewhere that a University somewhere in North America recreated the conditions of the archimedes solar ray and used mirrors to set fire to an imitation of the ship, which was made of the same type of wood, etc.
It was very interesting and I can't remember if it showed on television or if I watched it on a DVD from somewhere.
Still very cool though. It's definitely possible, since the university students did it.
Why are we still going after this, though? Someone needs to make a standardized test and settle it for everyone to see, so that we don't keep revisiting this.
Is he showing up with his birth certificate?
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Maybe they can prove that one actually exists!
Even though the false-birther myth has been reiterated time and time again by conspiracy theorists and infortainment 'pundits', and that it's been proven false time and time again by reliable news media. It'd be nice if we could just cut/paste the URL to the mythbuster segment to anyone who might still be laboring under the false pretense..
Although, come to think of it, I suspect that the people who still believe this myth probably don't use the internet much.
What? Two, three seasons ago. It has descended into gross out and stupid stuff that doesn't even interest my teenagers anymore. Was once fun, now sad.
I remember facepalming when I watched that episode.
If I wanted to set a ship on fire using solar reflections, I would aim at the sails, not the damp wood. The mythbusters apparently didn't think that way. I considered mailing them to ask if they would revisit the myth but never bothered to do that.
If the goal is to promote science education, Mythbusters seems like the LAST place to do it. Seriously, this is a show that will try one particular way of doing things, fail at it, and then conclude that the original "myth" is busted based on their one experiment. I would have a lot more respect for the show if their only possible conclusions were "confirmed" and "inconclusive"
Even if he was born outside the USA, as I was, he could still be president, as I could. You have to be natural born, not native born. The difference is that one can be natural born a US citizen if one parent is a US citizen no matter where one is born.
Also he was born in Hawaii, you stupid troll.
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/las-vegas-hotel-pool-sunlight-swimming-tourists/story?id=11739234
We didn't start the fire, said Obama. Mythbusters and/or Archimedes did.
So be ready to what will happen after that episode
"This is part of a White House effort to highlight the importance of science education."
How is Myth busters in any way useful for promoting science education?
Perhaps we should start learning to drive by watching Top Gear.
-1 (flamebait) rating for articles.
I think you missed the intended sarcasm of the OP.
Except Mythbusters is not scientific.
Why is science education important in public schools?
The vast majority of students will not be scientists, and will not have any opportunity to reinforce the information they learn, and hence will forget it all by the time they are 20.
If science were *really* so important, we wouldn't be beefing up science education in public schools, we would be allocating more grant money for the research, thus creating natural economic incentives for people to get degrees for this stuff. It would all be downhill from there.
Some sort of practical science education, which teaches you to avoid things like dropping the hair dryer into the tub, putting metal in the microwave, hydroplaning your car, etc. would be useful in public schools.
Of course, Obama probably knows all this. He's just posturing to be re-elected, because people love anything that ostensibly benefits the children (regardless of how well it will actually work or what it will actually cost).
I'd love to get to meet Kari Byron, too, but he went to all the trouble to get elected *President* just to arrange an introduction? Guy's got style and determination, no doubt.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Focusing attention on science education is a great goal, but Mythbusters has already done that myth to death. The last time a couple university teams did succeed in setting a ship on fire, but it took a much longer time to do than was plausible for a ship on the attack, bobbing up and down on waves.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Since they tried and failed to prove this myth previously they decided to call in an expert in smoke and mirrors !
Testing 1,2,3,4, Testing
Archimedes may have used mirrors, but he probably ditched that after he invented "greek fire", basically the ancient equivalent of napalm (sticky and extremely flammable... yeah that's not good).
"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
So McCain likely wasn't eligible to be President, or might have been
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States#Presidential_candidates_whose_eligibility_was_questioned
If McCain had won, I suspect that a group of the same size would exist as a "birthers".
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/weird/Las-Vegas-Vdara-Hotel-Death-Ray-104041383.html http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/can-a-building-be-a-sun-death-ray/
...during which he will challenge Adam and Jamie to revisit an ancient and somewhat controversial myth: Did Greek scientist and polymath Archimedes set fire to an invading Roman fleet using only mirrors and the reflected rays of the sun during the Siege of Syracuse?
Oh. I thought he was going to ask them to help him find his birth certificate.
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
Say this battle happened. How do we know for certain? Because X number of people wrote about it or wrote about people having told them about it or having being told about people who heard it from others. If X is large enough, we accept it as fact. If not, well then it becomes myth or religion.
Now, imagine a battle. Ships are going to attack an harbor. Ships ain't easily destroyed by the weapons of the age and worse, if you can hit them, they can hit you. They might be unable to hide, but neither can you, you are on the walls of the defences and the enemy knows this.
So, how can you protect your archers from their archers? Blinding light? Pose them beside mirrors and the enemy can't see them. Simple trick if you think about it. With this blinding light, you can fire countless arrows, even heavy slow ones like fire-arrows and aim at ease.
How would such a tactic, written down by someone who didn't understand and heard it from someone else be recorded?
The mighty ships sailed at the harbour and a blinding light erupted from the walls and one by one the mighty ships were set on fire and sunk.
Death ray is born. Nothing more then smoke and mirrors.
THAT is what disappoints me about the Myth Busters. They far to often examine only part of a myth or add their own elements, the worsed of it being "well we two couldn't do it, so no-one could". Well, I doubt the myth busters could put a man on the moon. So the moon landings are a myth?
Take the pycrete "myth". Why the paper substitution? THAT is not what the myth is about. And I still don't know how such a ship could have set sail. After all I presumed WW2 admirals were smart enough to ask "won't it melt". So why wouldn't it have melted?
Or the Jaws myth. "We are going to examine wether a very large movie monster can ram a ship, but we are going to use a smaller shark because sharks ain't that large in real life..." No shit sherlock. And sharks also don't ram ships in real life.
What next, I am going to test if my cat likes tuna by feeding it dog shit. If it doesn't like that that proofs it doesn't like tuna?
As for the movie myths. Can a pen explode, kill a room of baddies but leave the hero intact... NO. If you think James Bond has myths, you REALLY need to get out more.
The program was okay but has rapidly gone in the general direction of Discovery. Here is a hint. Gay fat guys building bling-bling bikes is NOT science. Mind you, they can go lower. Cakes? Tatoo shops? Why not just relabel it Oprahs Channel and be done with it.
So cool, they are once again going to proof a couple of overweight Americans can't build something that is highly unlike to have ever existed and if it did, not have been able to destroy and entire fleet before the soldiers landed (or swam ashore) and destroyed it. That is supposed to encourage Americans back to science? Fat chance.
We know what Americans think about science. We can see it in the nose-dive the science content on Myth-busters has taken. Unless it goes boom, not intrested. Note the increasing lack of myths that do not go boom.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Perhaps that's a good place to start. (unless Adam and Jamie can build a bigger mirror) :D
http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/09/29/1622250/Las-Vegas-Hotel-Vdara-an-Accidental-Death-Ray
No.
I figured that Adam and Jamie were going to look for the shovel ready jobs, that would really be in line with calling this a real myth
Somehow, I'd rather see politicians appear on the "Penn and Teller: Bullshit!" series than on Mythbusters. Penn and Teller often deal with issues that politicians could address, if they were so inclined. Several politicians and bureaucrats have been on the show, mostly promoting ludicrous stupidity, but occasionally being almost sensible.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
"Obamabots"; it has less weird religious cult connotations, while still being critical.
Secret Service Agents can justify their mandatory sunglasses!
Sheesh? That got modded troll?
I would have thought that was one of the least controversial or trollish things relating to politics that I've ever written on slashdot!
Of course not. That was just a shortlived urban legend of 2008.
. . . that that is a joke site that isn't created by anyone "on the left" at all, don't you?
Look at their Sponsored Ads (which change when you reload the page). Would someone that really thinks Obama is the Messiah have sponsored links like "Obama advisor tied to 60s domestic terrorists, a must read for Americans," "Inflation Hedge - Obama’s spending is out-of-control. Protect your wealth from inflation," or "Health Care Nightmare - Why Obama is pushing ’reform’ so quickly, in shocking video testimony!"?
Can constantly shaking your head back and forth while talking cause brain damage?
Saying B is not worse "then" A is not a denial that A is true.
Didn't Mythbusters already do this one? Like, 2-3 times, I think.
It'd be great if they put more effort into it this time, but seriously: it's not exactly an unknown scientific history mystery. Scientists and historians have been wondering for a long time about the veracity of the Siege of Syracuse tale. It's right up there with the actual content of Greek Fire.
Almost every single example of "replication attempt" tries to do so in a closed-minded fashion. They think: what do we know the $society was capable of? How can we apply these means to the desired end?
Instead, they should be thinking: how, without very specific technological advances several inventive generations removed, might we accomplish the same ends? Instead, they're sitting there rolling copper and making guestimates about things like troop strength and the like.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Maybe they will bust the myth that he is any different from George W Bush or any of the other freedom hating Republican and Democrat politicians.
Will they set Obama on fire? Or what's the point of him appearing?
But the anti-McCain birthers would have an entirely different type of arguments. Our current birthers simply refuse to acknowledge the proof they have been shown. Anti-McCain birthers would not be arguing facts, but interpretation of the term "natural born citizen" which is not well defined in the constitution.
This article is, for some unclear reason, tagged "politics". Just because a politician shows up somewhere does not make an event political; the Easter Egg Hunt every year at the whitehouse is not automatically a "democratic" or "republican" event just because the POTUS is one or the other.
Unless, of course, the people who are tagging this science event "politics" are stating that the democrats are pro-science and the republicans are anti-science, which is at least partially true.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Nice cover-up!
LOL
Got to love the O he has style unlike the guy who set the water on fire...
They don't call him the big O for nothing!
I hate that damn Katrina lady anyways...
They're doing Archimedes solar ray AGAIN? Aren't we up to three already (the original myth and two revisits)? Obviously I think it is fun that Obama will be on the show but frankly aside from that I really don't want to see that same tired Myth for a third time...
The important thing is to have a proper test. They often redo things which viewers complain loudly about. I say they should do this one over, but use the Arthur C. Clarke approach of 50,000 well-trained fans in a stadium with tin-foil reflectors. The Stroke of the Sun (later known as "A Slight Case of Sunstroke"). It's only 6 pages long... great read.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
If McCain had won, I suspect that a group of the same size would exist as a "birthers".
It's possible, though I seriously doubt it -- some conservatives are reactionary enough to want to invalidate the Obama presidency for whatever reason whether it's fact-based or not, but who on the liberal end of things would do the same thing to a President McCain if it could leave them with President Palin? The intersection of the sets of people who are fringe liberal and people who would prefer Palin to McCain is the null set.
That being said, if it did happen, at least that "birtherism" would be based in some semblance of fact.
This. In fact, it is likely only because Obama is black that this even offends anyone, as amazing as that is. Further if those who disagree would just ignore it, it would probably go away all on it's own. Or do you still hear people grousing about Barry Goldwater today? No?
You missed part (2) of the very first paragraph of the first link. He was a citizen by bloodline, regardless of where physically he was born, just like Obama.
"This is part of a White House effort to highlight the importance of science education"
I'm not sure how the two are related. Every time I've seen the show they've gone out of their way to hide any science content from the viewer.
When it's been unavoidable, they've shown placards reading "Warning: Science content"
From my perspective, Mythbusters seems pretty anti-science.
Required reading for internet skeptics
So McCain likely wasn't eligible to be President, or might have been
If McCain had won, I suspect that a group of the same size would exist as a "birthers".
Maybe, and it'd be just as dumb. McCain's parents were citizens, so it doesn't matter where he was born. Obama was born in Hawaii, so it doesn't matter if his parents were citizens.
The enemies of Democracy are
As far as I remember there already was an episode about this. Using mirror or carefully aligned set of mirrors to light up/burn wood. Or maybe it was some other show, was it?
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
How much is the Secret Service going to flip out when they blow something up, point it in the wrong direction and give him a sunburn, or any other such silliness that is quite entertaining.... I guess this episode will involve no trips to the Alameida bomb range. No explosions, gunfire, or fire for that matter. Doesn't this show the stupidity of his people if they are going to have him challenge Adam and Jamie with a myth they have disproven twice already? Andy
http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/experiments/deathray/10_Mythbusters.html
It's not enforced at the federal level, but AFAIK, everyone who wishes to own a motor vehicle in the States is required by (state) law to buy auto insurance or face a fine.
(The only defense against this counter-example I've ever heard is that "driving is a luxury". This argument does not hold up for those of us who must commute to work.)
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
The difference is that one can be natural born a US citizen if one parent is a US citizen no matter where one is born.
The rules have changed over time, but it's never been that simple. There's a minimum amount of time that the parent must have spent in the U.S. Here's Wikipedia's take: US Nationality Law.
In particular, for someone born at the time that President Obama was born, the citizen parent would have to have lived in the U.S. for at least 10 years prior to the child's birth, and 5 of those 10 years had to be after the parent's 14th birthday. It's impossible for someone to satisfy those requirements before their 19th birthday, and President Obama's mother was only 18 when she gave birth.
So the location of President Obama's birth is the key to him being a natural born citizen.
That's why the summary says "revisit".
In C++, your friends can see your privates.
Obama is a terrible president, but at least he's getting this right. Credit where credit is due.
Oops. Botched the link.
US Nationality Law
Yet, somehow, granted his stay in Congress was short, he had the audacity to believe that a President rules. He came in; this is also the fault of his people; with the idea they could run the show. Somehow they perceived that Bush "ruled" and thereby they could too. How his Administration; I am looking at Rahm; and such could have such an upside down view of the current state of politics is beyond me. He blew it right off the bat by handing off all the big bills to Congress to craft and they crafted bills only committees could craft, hulking messes full of graft and crap. When he gave up his leadership role that early he lost any chance of getting it back. Pelosi and Reid run the show, he is just there to put a face on it and also deflect blame, be the lightning rod, be the one they can claim opponents to their legislative crap are really his opponents and only because of his race.
Carter tried and failed by confronting his party and as such became a single term President because he could do nothing. Reagan succeeded by personality as did Clinton. Bush #1 meandered and was relegated to a single term. Bush #2 stepped up after 9/11, frankly I figured he would be a single term, but he provided leadership when it was needed before falling off nearly completely in 08. Obama best hope he can find a good Republican foil in the House to let him step up, Clinton had Gingrinch but honestly I don't even think a Gingrinch can save Obama. He first needs to rule himself before he can lead the US. He comes off as too quick to castigate, he looks for the bad guy across the isle all the while ignoring the fact his own party minimizes him more, hell he had majorities that were proof against the minority party and he still could not get his party in line.
No, inspire comes after you have shown you can lead, he cannot. He got handed accolades before he tried and apparently that set him back further than even his most ardent foes could have hoped.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Maybe he'll also give the signal to start the experiment.
He could stand in the dark and say, "Let there be light!"
P.S. I recall the did that same experiment previously and failed.
First off, you see these two parts:
I think it's kind of stupid, but I'm not going to criticize him by saying he shouldn't be on a TV show or anything like that... But, I think that most people think there are different standards for the President versus a private citizen.
And:
Reagan and I think Bush (for instance) always wore formal clothes (suit jacket) in the oval office, afaik. I'm not saying I care one iota about that, but people have very different ideas of what's expected of the president.
I don't think you raped and murdered a girl in 1990, in fact I don't think you did, and I wouldn't care one itoa if you did. But OTHER people might care and think you shouldn't be hanging around their children.
You see, it's the act of mentioning something by mentioning how you're not mentioning it. It's classic weaselese, and that'll get you a troll point right there.
Secondly:
but the president is supposed to be above partisanship,
AHAHAHAHAaaaah. Yeah, you must have been crying your ass off since, oh, George Washington left office.
And while Regan and Bush (both of them maybe?) somehow get a free-ride for appealing to, ah, wait, not YOU of course, but to YOUR FRIENDS views of the presidency for "always wearing formal clothes (suit jacket) in the oval office", your OTHER friends (see, I've got liberal friends, I'm not partisan as I'm accusing other of being) have had an issue with it.
Let me be clear about this: He could dance naked in whatever room he wants and broadcast it live as long as he doesn't preemptively invade any more nations. And if he can avert a econopocalypse and manage to turn it around, I'll even let him have a smoke break now and then.
But hey, maybe you were just trying to be polite. But inserting your complaints within layers of bullshit doesn't really make it any more polite. It adds a veneer of political correctness, but that in turn just pisses some people off even more. And if you truly, honestly, just don't care about it... then why did you post anything at all?
- What a "bill of attainder" actually is
- The government's power to tax
Maybe it's a rebranding from Mythbusters to Mythsuckers. When a foreign born communist spawn of islam is your "special" guest, you are screwed.
This legal statement makes no mention of parentage.
the only people I hear using the term "teabaggers" to describe the Tea Party are people on the left. Big surprise, people use insults, personal attacks and hyperbole to assert their entrenched position.
I'm waiting for some sort of Science Party or Rational Thought Party to come along and crush these idiots. I'd jump on their bandwagon, but only if there is evidence to support such an action.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The Mythbusters crew have already done this. Twice, if memory serves. The answer as I recall was: Busted.
Why are we revisiting the failed... oh never mind.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
... validate the Myth of all of those "Shovel ready jobs" he touted to get his Trillion dollar stimulus spending bill through Congress.
That myth is obviously busted. Too bad the NYTimes reporter didn't care to report on it at the time. Gotta look out for your comrades at the DNC, right MSM "reporters"?
Additional considerations:
MIT is a good bit norther than Syracuse, Sicily (42 22 25 N for Cambridge, MA versus 37 05 N for Syracuse). It sounds like Mythbusters also tried this in San Francisco, which is at least much closer in latitude (37 46 45.48 N).
NB: Slashdot appears to be eating the degree symbol and minute/second quotes in the latitudes given here.
This is purely a guess, but I have a hunch that the air around Syracuse in Archimedes's time was a mite bit cleaner than the air around MIT in the modern era, and quite possibly also cleaner than the air around the San Francisco Bay (the area of the bay where Mythbusters routinely works is east, i.e. downwind, of highway 101 and of a light industrial zone).
The main ships used in the naval portion of the Siege of Syracuse were probably the Romans' heavy ships, the quinqueremes, five-decker galleys. While they could be set with sails, they were much more commonly rowed, especially in battle, as then the captains often couldn't afford to be at the mercy of the winds -- no cannon means close-range combat, requiring greater maneuverability.
Considering that the Siege of Syracuse was in fact a siege, it's most likely that the Roman ships were either parked in the harbor mouth, or on a blockade, making regular sweeps past the harbor mouth.
The Syracusan harbor does indeed open to the east. I cannot find it at the moment, but I recall reading that air quality tends to be clearer in the morning than the evening due in part to the number of diurnally pollinating plants, making any ante meridian solar furnace attempt perforce more effective than any post meridian efforts.
I am in no way arguing that these various factors somehow "prove" that Archimedes did indeed use a solar furnace weapon. Rather, I am trying to point out ways in which Mythbusters has failed to construct a wholly compelling argument.
Cheers,
Myth: Obama is a great president
Status: BUSTED!!!
As is mentioned in your second link, the only party with the standing to challenge a President Elect's eligibility is Congress, who get to decide what makes a natural born citizen in the first place, so the whole issue is basically moot. The clause was originally intended to prevent roving cadet branches of European royal families from trying to set up shop in the US (see eg: the Second Mexican Empire). Given the minuscule chance of that type of situation arising in the present day, I'm personally in favor of replacing the natural born citizen requirement with 20 years of citizenship and let the people decide if native birth matters.
Unfortunatley, I always get modded down when I say this, despite the fact that it's true.
They are trained in special effects, not science. They like to make things go boom in a spectacular way. Science is just the excuse.
That is why you see weak hypotheses, flimsy controls, and wild generalisations. I don't know how many times I've looked at one of their "experiments" and thought "How the fuck can you conclude anything based on that sloppy bullshit" or "What if they'd tried this? There's a good chance it would have gone differently"
There is nothing wrong with a show about things exploding or about testing myths redneck style. But the issue I have with them is that they present things as science and make huge leaps of generalisation, which basically defecates on the scientific method. It goes completely against the scientific method. So idiots then turn around and mimic their sloppiness and think they are doing real science. It's very detrimental.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Should be pretty easy for Adam and Jamie to debunk the "Hope and Change" myth of Obama's candidacy...
You can also add the 10th Amendment to your argument:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Where the hell does it say in the Constitution that the US government can FORCE someone to engage in any specific economic activity?
And let's not forget the right to privacy. If medical privacy can be the foundation of a "right" to abortion, how can the government get even MORE involved in health care? If a woman has a privacy-based right to an abortion, than EVERYONE has a privacy-based right to pay for the health care THEY desire, not that MANDATED by the government.
Last time they failed. Why would they revisit this unless they believed it would be a different outcome?
We are running outta oil/fuel (at least to meet demand). The world is pushing for alternate energy. Solar is an option. US has some of the most advanced experiments on concentrated solar power.
So... in order to ensure victory for the president one could:
1) get a mock ship in a pool near the
2) align the mirrors to focus on the pool/ship
3) voila: fire.
Everyone is happy. Only in America! and hey the president is working on Solar. Great show! - cue commercials.
Here is wikipedia on concentrated solar power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power (notice the mention of Archimedes in its history)
I'll skip this Mythbusters for sure. It is a repeat anyway and O'Bozo is a waste of time.
Back in my day we didn't have quote tags, either.
Can never get these newfangled whiz-bang widgets to work ... now get off my lawn.
I guess people missed the news about MIT's solar mirror that could melt steel. I know this is using materials and techniques that weren't around during the time of Archimedes, but it does prove it's possible; though that doesn't mean it was probable.
Here's a link to an article on MIT's mirror: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/06/30/solar-energy-mirror.html
The saying that "its what you learn, after you know it all that counts", seems to have fallen on deaf ears in America these days, where arrogance and has replaced wisdom and reason as the most sought after cultural commodity.
It certainly is true that once you get into science you discover that you know so very, very little about how things really are, even though you know far more than those who find math and science uninteresting or irrelevant to their lives.
Sadly, for America, the ignorance that comes with bliss is more highly prized by corporate America. Scientists these days are finding their talents and knowledge disrepected and too often mocked for being honest enough to admit that the current state of science doesn't have all the answers, just very good approximations to most answers. These days, when scientists say they don't have all the answers, the religious and ideologically driven scoff that they have no need for science, since they are convinced they have all the answers already.
Neuroscientists really need to answer why this is, before it is too late and what little that is left of the biodiversity on this planet that sustains humanity permanently disappears.
So we can have civilization. When you get down to it, its really that simple.
Its just the politics of anarchy are far more popular these days, as people seek ways to get away with what they can amid the chaos of a collapsing biosphere.
"but this feels like a really weak excuse to have the President on TV"
Your attitude precisely expresses why America is faltering and why other societies are moving into the lead in so many areas of science and technology. Rather than recognizing the importance of any and all efforts to promote science and technology as interesting to kids and our citizenry in its own right, you would rather see the president fail and his appearance in support of such an effort become a political football.
What is truly sad is that the average American kid's education in math and science has fallen so far, that it now takes the President going on an entertainment-based "science" program to even get their interest. Its gotten to the point that one no longer knows which is falling faster in America, its standing in math and science education, its standard of living, or life expectancy, all of which are highly correlated.
I don't know if you have children, but frankly I feel sorry for them if you do. I also feel sorry for the countless other American kids who will grow up in a world where the finest universities will no longer be in the US, where the level of innumeracy and even simple knowledge of basic scientific concepts, such as what constitutes a theory, are beyond the vast majority to comprehend and who foolishly think that their lives won't be affected by the consequences and thus don't bother to promote it, want to pay taxes to support it, nor have the sense to encourage it at every opportunity.
My own sense is that if the President does go on the show and this leads to just one kid growing up to make an important scientific discovery, it will be a far greater accomplishment than anything republicans have done in the past 20 years combined. However, that is just my own opinion and I'll let other scientists stand up and defend all the great work republicans are doing on behalf of science.
It could be worse. Remember when Bush appeared on Deal or No Deal? It just was so unnecessary
It would truly be a fool's errand for Obama's time to try to go around "fix shit", when republicans are far too good and far to fast at plaster the place with it faster than any President could ever possibly clean it up.
It would be better if he could get even one kid to become a scientist and make an important discovery that really would help to "clean up the shit" as you so elegantly phrase it.
"Sharks don't ram ships in real life".
The ampullae of Lorenzini are used by sharks for orientation. These electroreceptors can be influenced by ships hulls, which often have much metal. Reports of sharks and whales bumping into ships are not as uncommon as you may think.
No scientific experiment tests "ALL" aspects of a theory. Each test, regardless of how well designed, makes some assumptions that are presumed to be true.
Sure, it was unique at first but has since then worn real thin.. this will just cement it for me that its not worth watching.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Mythbusters need to investigate the myth that among all the teajhadists combined they have more functional brain-cells as our Honolulu born US president.
After all, the guy was smart enough to post the announcement of his own birth in the Honolulu newspaper so he could go on to become President of the United States. Teajhadists are simply jealous. Just like Jerry Brown who planted the illegal immigrant maid in Meg Whitman's house 10 years ago and convince the SSA to send her a letter notifying her of the fact 7 years ago so he could beat her in the 2010 election. Compared to teajhadists, democrats look like geniuses.
No wonder America's interest in science withers, the left side of its brain seems to be working but the right side seems to have died.
Its because many, for very good reason, see the possibility of her becoming President of the United States as potentially catastrophic for our nation, given her lack of education, insufficient knowledge, or adequate intelligence to be anywhere within a zillion miles of the presidency, not to mention her incredibly divisive politics where she goes around the country to proclaim how happy to be "in the pro-American part of the country" as she did in a recent speech in North Carolina.
If you can't see that, presumably you are stupid enough to be one of her supporters.
republicans are pushing very hard right now to rebuild the failed Star-wars defense system and he's trying to show the country the futility of the program?
Real myth to burst on Dec 18 would be Immaculate Conception (and Resurrection too while at it). But that would be too politically incorrect.
It is racist not to support Obama.
Anyone notice the card at the president's feet that says "POTUS" with what looks like an arrow? Heh.
It's easy to see why McCain was chosen to be Obama's runner-up, then. At the top, both parties are the same, and they have a narrative that they want to get out there in order to control you.
It's a subtle enslavement, but it's quite clear: they control the questions, and tell you what the choices are, If you accept that those are the choices, they've already got you before you even make a decision.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
The most hilarious thing about that entire debate, in my opinion, McCain wasn't born in the US! He was born in Panama! Haha it makes me laugh every time I think about it. OK, It's stupid, but all those idiotic birthers don't realize that there really WAS someone born outside the US in the campaign, and it wasn't Obama.
Qxe4
mirrors. At least from what I remember the big problem was aiming them but if they used big signal mirrors you could actually aim them fairly quickly.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
MythBuster: Lets mez sees diis nowz.
Usiz Barak Obama Hussain ... Isz usz a Cracker or Nigro? Answerz Mez.
Well ... in all do respect ... I can't understand what your saying.
Well nosziz ... wehz just got the answerz ... now dontin wehzusz.
Dem ragity assuz whityz got soz many deseasuz that theyz goug to diz out ... leaven usz dem goodiez.
Burn Whity Burz ... Yall.
..Go on Myth-busters and pursue anything that won't fix anything else...
I coulda sworn they had already done this one already with a ship.
Why the hell does this guy always try to shove his face into pop culture when he's suffering poor ratings. That's an episode I won't be watching. I do enjoy the show, but I don't want to see that guy doing glorified re-election stunts to attempt to "make himself cool again". He had his shot and he failed. . . big time. NEXT!
Mr Obama:
Don't Bring your birth certificate!
They'll just blow it up.
They've done it twice I believe. Once where they failed to build it, then they did it again with a viewer submission attempt.
With that hotel in Vegas adding legitimacy back to the claim that you can build a mirror based death ray by nuking deck chairs and delivering some serious injuries to customers by the pool.
Why the President needs to be involved is beyond me.
No, you are doing it wrong.
The vast majority of students will not be mathematicians or accountants
But the vast majority WILL need to balance a checkbook, calculate a tip, and do their taxes.
The vast majority of students will not be writers
But the vast majority WILL need to write letters, emails, and so on. Also, they will all need to read.
The vast majority of students will not be historians
But the vast majority will be curious about the major world events, such as the world wars, the founding of the country lived in, etc.
The vast majority of students will not be althletes
But they will all need to maintain basic health over the course of their lives, and exercise is necessary for that.
So, in every case, you give a bad example that is similar in form only to the parent post. The parent advocated a basic, general, and practical science education only...the type that doesn't need a lot of funding and will be useful to the vast majority of students. This applies to all of your examples as well.
why do we send children to school
To give them a general education focusing on basics and pragmatics. Anything specialized should be handled in private schools or, at best, special public schools for qualifying advanced students only.