Slashdot Mirror
President Obama On Mythbusters Tonight
elrous0 writes "As was previously reported, President Obama mentioned back in October that he would be appearing on an upcoming episode of the popular Discovery Channel series Mythbusters. Well, the episode is finally airing tonight. In the episode, the President helps Jamie and Adam test the 'Archimedes Death Ray' myth for a 3rd time (the myth having been 'busted' the first time, and that bust surviving a challenge from MIT students the second time out). Though the President only appears in a couple of brief scripted segments, the actual test (using 500 schoolkids doubling as mirror-bearing soldiers) is purportedly pretty interesting."
I like Obama and love Mythbusters (or used to). What a lame duck of a Myth. That Myth wasn't even very exciting the first time they did it, let alone the second, and now a third time?! If they're going to have Obama on it then why can't we see him getting his hands dirty? What better way to get people excited about science by showing a man a lot of people respect excited about it?
So that's what kids' science education is boiling down to? Standing still and holding a mirror?
Would have been much more awesome, and effective in encouraging science interest, in my opinion, if the kids had a hand in making something go boom.
Unless they have a major reversal of the busting of the myth, a kid would interpret this as "This is stupid. Science doesn't work. Let's go play Xbox."
More Twoson than Cupertino
I still want to see a MythBusters special on transportation security myths, especially after Adam's recent knife incident. Can someone with an account on their forums post the suggestion (preferably more than one such someone)?
If you're gonna rag on them, rag on the fact that the fucking narrator spends a minute explaining what happen, another minute on what they're going to do, another on what could go wrong, replete with puns, three minutes of actually showing Adam and Jamie or Kari, Grant, and Tori doing stuff, then, just as things are progressing, they switch to the other team and their myth and start all over, and THEN follows it up with two minutes of what's going to happen after the commercial break.
Drives me nuts (and away from the TV).
Perhaps the "science" that is being taught is that, despite the fact that your research has reached the same conclusion on 2 separate occasions, you need to keep yourself open to the possibility that you might just have been wrong twice. When other people provide evidence you are wrong (I don't recall where it was, but I saw a tv show or webpage in the last few months that demonstrated the death ray does work), you need to examine that evidence, revisit your study, and see if you reach a new conclusion. That's a quality that a lot of people lack these days (they will insist they are correct even when showing them clear and concise evidence they are wrong).
One day, some old-timey soldier noticed that he could reflect the sun off his shield if he polished it real good and it made it hard for the enemy to see if he reflected the sun into the eyes of enemy soldiers. Same way we used to reflect the sun off our watches and shine it in people's faces when we were kids. So a few soldiers started doing this when the sun happened to be at the proper angle and, presto, we've got a death ray. 'cause the enemy has to come up with some reason to explain why they got their asses kicked so easily. "It was a death ray, majesty! It burned the eyes of our soldiers and set ships on fire!"
The fact that they're down to bitching about the moisture content of the test boat only shows how impractical this would be in real-world conditions. Complaining that their test conditions were less than ideal is part of the problem with the myth. No military leader in his right mind is going to work with a "weapon" that only works at a certain time of day, on a boat with a certain moisture content, moving slower than X speed, etc.--especially when there are far-superior alternatives available (like flaming arrows, etc.).
Those MIT students sound like sore losers. And like all sore losers, they're full of plenty of excuses. They had their chance and they couldn't deliver.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I've never gotten why we call it ObamaCare. It was basically written by conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans (how long was it Max Baucus held up the bill in his committee until Republicans in the committee agreed to it?) But the CBO analysis was that it would help save money. And the only way to bring down the debt in the long term is to bring in more health care funding and reduce spending as much as possible. So we can at least say it was a decent attempt. Hopefully we can improve on it in the coming years.
Is the Obama administration more transparent than previous ones? Yes. Is it ultra-see-through transparent? No.
Most legislation is online before they vote on it. And has been for a while. Not that Presidents have any power over that.
Have you ever thought about falling tax receipts because of the recession? Spending could remain constant while receipts fall, sending deficits skyrocketing. This is partly the case - tax receipts have fallen, the government had to pay out more unemployment benefits (never mind the extensions), etc. But yeah. The Bush tax cuts are still in effect. The giant, gaping unfunded hole Bush left in Medicare is still intact. The wars Bush started are still going on. So yes, much of the deficit is still directly attributable to Bush and the Republicans. Now with Obama, we have the stimulus package, which consisted almost entirely of tax cuts and aid to the states, which were spending less money. So really, it was an increase in unfunded government expenditures while total state+federal spending remained flat. And then there's ObamaCare, which is funded. So, yeah, sounds like most of the deficit/debt problems are not Obama's fault.
Anyone who thought Obama was going to pull out all troops on day one was a tool ignorant of international politics.
Corporations have undue influence on government, but they're hardly the masters of poor government puppets. I know it's a popular canard, but it's just not true.
Is Obama different? Nope, he's a thorough moderate. 30 years ago he would have been called a conservative.
Wow, it's so annoying to hear Obama-teleprompter jokes. Especially since they're from formerly disinterested morons who never realized that all politicians use them for speeches anyway. "But-but-he stutters and sounds like an idiot without one!" Remember the Presidential debates where he kicked the crap out of McCain 3-0 without one, or the open questions session with the House Republicans where he made the whole caucus look like buffoons (enough so that they publicly wished they hadn't done it)? After listening to polished PR-approved answers that provide no insight, I at least appreciate a President who tries to answer questions however much I might disagree with him.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!