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."
So do they test it on him ?
They should have shown him blowing up something instead. It'd have been more entertaining.
Granted it is probably a long shot to get the "death ray" to kill anyone. It might be good enough to light sails on fire, though. And at the very least, I suspect it could blind the shit out of someone approaching, and that's not a bad way to gain the upper hand, not a bad way at all.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Most of humanity appears to thoroughly enjoy the pastime of hero worship. This seems to be widespread enough that we might want to investigate whether there is some evolutionary advantage to it. Maybe kissing ass provides some sort of inoculation against disease.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The real myth that should be tested is that President Obama is actually a progressive or a liberal kind of a politician.
I am a libertarian and I can't stand any other approach - socially liberal and completely free market fiscally, but to me it is obvious that Obama is actually not very socially liberal and definitely not free market oriented at all (*I think he has no clue about economics, period), but so many people believe that he is actually a liberal and yet so many believe that he is the Devil, etc. that there seems to be a good bunch of myths that could be busted about this guy, while some may just be confirmed. Maybe he is a Muslim/atheist/communist/fascist/Maoist/devil worshiper born in Kenya, I kind of hope he is all of those things at once, at least that would be interesting.
That sounds like it's all just arguing over the definition of words and political opinions. I think you have the wrong show.
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?
Obama has already proven his true convictions to anyone paying attention.
Busted!
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
Q: How can you tell someone's a libertarian without asking?
A: They'll tell you.
The president will tend to be loved or hated by most, without much middle room, in our culture. It's party of the ability to have a say in the choice - you become "attached". Imagine how much more people would support for their favorite football team (or condemn the opponents) if they could affect the outcome of the game?
There aren't just people who *love* Obama, there are plenty who despise him. Likewise there are many who loved, and many who despised Bush, Clinton, Elder Bush, Reagan, etc.
Also, as far as individuals go, he is the one who holds the most power in the country, and thus is the easiest to talk about. People like things that are simple - it's a lot easier to talk about, blame, criticize, support and extol one person (such as the president), than a group of non-uniform people (such as congress)
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
The same could be said of RIAA-funded talentless "musicians".
Living With a Nerd
And welcome to the start of the one sided argument. I am your host. The first person said within the second sentence that they can't stand anything other than their own views. Sure, this person can argue their own views, but yet when they stay so closed minded, it will lead to an amazing;y awful discussion that I will enjoy watching. Let's bring out our first contestant
The world is how you make it
Do they bust the myth Obama is the Messiah?
Hey! I'm kidding! Calm down. Put down those DDoS scripts!
Seriously, though, do they bust or confirm he's Kenyan? :-D
Hey! Still kidding!
This article is about how wonderful it will be to see the glorious president appear on a television show.
It is completely off-topic for you to comment on the silliness of worshiping the president by, say, dedicating an entire article to the fact that the glorious president is appearing on a television show.
I find it odd that The Discovery Channel would get access to the President and use their huge publicity opportunity to... rehash a myth they've already debunked twice. What?
The only possible reason to use this particular myth is so you can get 500 kids involved, each holding a mirror, and maybe involving the kids directly in the science, plus a little time with a few celebrities, will help associate science with coolness. I mean, it's an easy and pretty safe myth from the kids' perspectives. Hold a mirror, aim reflection at ship a safe distance away, hope for it to start smoking and burst into flames.
I dunno, though, it just seems like they could have done something new (at least new to the show) that would be just as engaging. Like debunking the professor's use of coconuts to power a radio on Gilligan's Island or something.
Adam: "So, as you can see, stirring the solution in 5 coconuts didn't work. Busted."
Jamie: "Agreed. Busted. So what are we testing next?"
Barak: [walks on stage]"Wait a minute. We can't stop here, can we? Don't we need to scale it up?"
Jamie: "Sure, normally, but how do we scale this one up?"
Adam: "It'll take the output of 500 coconuts! Where are we going to find enough people to build and operate hundreds of coconut batteries? It's impossible!"
Barak: "Fortunately, I brought a few friends along to help out. C'mon out, kids!"
[cue 500 schoolkids]
Barak, Jamie, and Adam: "SCIENCE!"
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Why not frikkin' lasers?
Living With a Nerd
Actually, I think it provided a larger share of food and women (as being a buddy of the "king" getting the first pick of scraps was never a bad place to be)
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
I am a libertarian and I can't stand any other approach... definitely not free market oriented at all
Well, you're a Libertarian. No one is free-market-oriented enough for you.
Obama is actually not very socially liberal
"We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."
In what way is that not socially liberal? I guess the conservatives haven't set the bar very high, but he has explicitly acknowledged atheists repeatedly, while everyone else, even democrats, do everything they can to distance themselves from even the rumor that they might maybe have met with some of them once to see what they had to say.
Maybe he is a Muslim/atheist/communist/fascist/Maoist/devil worshiper
You realize at least three of those are contradictory, right? There's no "maybe" about it -- he cannot possibly be all of those things.
born in Kenya,
He was born in Hawaii.
Not that it matters. What, exactly, does that change? Is there some mystical essence of American-ism that children are endowed with in their first ten seconds of life outside of mommy? The fact that this was an issue at all is beyond absurd.
I kind of hope he is all of those things at once, at least that would be interesting.
If you think he hasn't done anything interesting, you really haven't been paying attention.
I'm guessing you were being sarcastic through at least some of this, but it's hard to tell where. I guess I accept the whoosh if it's coming, but really...
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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
Who cares, wheres Kari?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Maybe he uses his teleprompter. Israel does not even use lasers on its sharks
Home of The Suki Series
Archimedes Deathray?!
goldurn'd boob-tube never gets it right when dealing with the inter-tubes.
It's Archimedes Plutonium , you dolts!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Imagine how much more people would support for their favorite football team (or condemn the opponents) if they could affect the outcome of the game?
Many already think they do. Aside from the delusional, on a very small scale, via purchases of tickets and tee shirts, they do influence the winners, since the wealthiest team usually wins.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
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)?
Supply side economics.
When they tested the "myth" about surfboards going thru a windshield, they forgot it was originally a myth about Longboards and Waterskis in the 60s.
They used modern cars with curved and hardened glass windshields, not vertical 50s windshields that beach bums had, and didn't use either a 60s heavy longboard (which was a lot heavier and not as curved) or a 50s waterski (which used to have metal trim and were made out of heavier woods).
What reminded me of this was during the 80s I used to downhill ski on some old wood skis with metal trim, with leather boots, and they weren't as light or shaped like modern skis and could easily go thru windshields.
When testing any myth, you need to test the original myth, not the current version. Old cars didn't used to have seatbelts that people would use and were made out of heavier steel, for example.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
So when a libertarian's house is on fire and the firefighters show up, do they say "No, that's ok, I'm a libertarian."?
They were waiting for left-wing nutjob flamebait.
How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
Sounds like we're getting screwed on this Archimedes thing.
Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
...will you please don the velcro suite we have thoughtfully provided for this next experiment..."
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Hitler!
Way to again mis-state the liberal position. They really need to create an emoticon for you people to save time.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Of all the myths they've 'busted', this is the one I most wanted to see revisited.
Survival kits have signal mirrors with a sighting mechanism and no moving parts that allows the user to shine the sun's reflection directly onto the target (even a distant moving airplane). A mechanism Archimedes could have fashioned onto a shield for instance.
The Mythbusters claim the myth was 'busted' not because enough heat couldn't be generated, but because an individual soldier would be unable to distinguish his particular 'reflected spot', and therefore be unable to focus it onto the target. A simple sighting mechanism like those found on signal mirrors solves this problem, allowing an entire group to focus on one point simultaneously.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
they can do that or go for the big boom or fireball and any ways this is mythbusters and not E-com 101
That would require science, not politics. Good luck with that!
Life is not for the lazy.
But why do the peasants flock to the street to adore their king? They don't get any scraps from that, but that's exactly what is going on when people get excited about, say, the President appearing on a TV show.
Test if a wooden gun can get past like in the line and if one can work like in the line of fire.
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).
The *idea* is sound. The question is could you get the focal point right using say 500 people. What they have shown over and over though is getting a large group to focus their point of light is hard.
http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/light/solar_hotdog_cooker.html
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=solar+power+mirrors&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=Cu__TPjCIZL2swOr8ZmwCw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=2&ved=0CDgQsAQwAQ&biw=1271&bih=746
If you made say a 30-40 ft mirror and bent it into a parabola then put anything in that point it would probably instantly catch fire/melt. With bunch of disconnected mirrors separately moving mirrors (which they even showed once). Not so much as they can not get the focal point right or hot enough.
In this case, it's a use of the President as a figurehead to promote science in education in the US media. To geeks, it's not so much that El Prez himself is appearing on one of our favorite TV shows, it's that he's using the bully pulpit rather than Executive Order to try and promote the importance of science in our educational system.
The President as spokescritter instead of dictator, this is the kind of government program that might possibly do some good.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
1) I don't care for career politicians, regardless of the label they wear. Having any political idiot come out and do a talking-head segment adds absolutely nothing to the program.
2) Testing this myth yet again is just f'ing stupid.
I wonder how many people will avoid watching it just because of obama's appearance, and how many will skip this one because of the repeated subject.
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 kids at MIT proved you and Jamie wrong.
Free Martian Whores!
I honestly think the best parts of my education involved things blowing up, or combustion. Potassium bars being dropped into water. Baking soda and vinegar. Seeing pretty colors when you burn different chemicals. Welding in shop. Hell, even blasting ants with magnifying glasses during recess. Hopefully they do learn something at least... burning stuff is fun and educational!
What I don't get is why people expect to raise the temperature all the way up to 300C so the ship will burst into flames, when 50C is enough to scald human skin and would likely get an invading army yelling and jumping into the water. Not to mention the brightness of the light would be enough to temporarily blind and disorient them.
The first person to write about this alleged incident was Lucian who merely mentioned *fire* (and since he wrote about it 3-4 hundred years after the fact, it's already not a credible source of information) while the second one, who came another 2-3 hundred years later (Anthemius) was someone who investigated "burning glasses" (lenses) and so he just MIGHT have had a bit of an agenda there.
They listen to the fans and if the fans find fault with their logic they call them on it. The boys have the moxy to admit they might be wrong and retest it under the new paramters the fans say should be added. I think its great that they want to revisit previously busted myths. Thats just my opinion I could be wrong.
When you dislike the human race as much as I do, Karma:Bad is inevitable lol.
Because the ancient Greeks didn't have lasers, but they did have mirrors and sunlight.
Besides, where's the fun in lasers without sharks?
Free Martian Whores!
appearing on Different Strokes. Painfully lame. Politicians can't make science cool because kids don't think much of politicians. If they do, then I'm afraid you are likely preaching to the choir.
46 & 2
The location of birth matters because it's tied to the requirements for the office of President. Interestingly, doesn't McCain fail that one as well by being born in Panama? Note: Specifically not in military base i Panama, because a US military base is considered US soil.
The real question is what defines "natural born"? Is it born on US soil? Born to a US citizen? Born to two US citizens? Both Obama and McCain fail at least one of those. Obama being born to one US citizen and a foreigner in Hawaii and McCain being born on foreign soil (Panama City, I believe it was?) to two US citizens.
Way to again mis-state the liberal position. They really need to create an emoticon for you people to save time.
Then fix the statement, instead of resorting to a "you people" insult with no added content.
That which does not kill us makes us... st
So when a libertarian's house is on fire and the firefighters show up, do they say "No, that's ok, I'm a libertarian."?
Why should they? Where I live the firefighters are all volunteers working with equipment that was purchased with donations. What does that have to do with not wanting the government to do more than the basics (maintaining basic law and order, enforcing contract law, etc)?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Hmm, good point. I suddenly have an interest in watching it again, just to see how they manage to reverse their own findings. Their testing on this one has been fairly thorough and relatively rigorous given the slapdash quality of most of the science on the show (which of course is its popular appeal - they aren't going for accuracy as much as they are reasonably plausible tests that look good when filmed, scientific rigor doesn't sell, but at least they pay it lip service).
In retrospect, given the real goal of this episode, it's almost a given that the myth at least get a promotion to PLAUSIBLE, if not a big fat CONFIRMED.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Silly - they don't watch science shows.
That was one of the problems the MIT students had. When they tried it with actual polished copper, in real world conditions, their "proof" of this myth feel apart.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
They ran out of sharks again.
What's so funny about the whole controversy is that it doesn't matter where he was born. His mother was a citizen, he's a citizen, end of story.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Nah, he isn't the most powerful person in the US yet. Think about this...
Obama wants the power to turn off the internet. He will probably get it eventually but doesn't have it yet.
Neil Smit's company (Comcast) however routinely disconnects or restricts bandwidth to/from various parts of the internet.
Now with the changeover Obama will probably have a hard time getting Congress to do his bidding. Disney, Comcast and even foreign companies like Sony get that all the time!
Not that it matters. What, exactly, does that change? Is there some mystical essence of American-ism that children are endowed with in their first ten seconds of life outside of mommy? The fact that this was an issue at all is beyond absurd.
As you might not know, It matters because you have to be born in the united states to be eligible to be president. Its not "important" in any practical sense, but its in the "rules".
Perhaps ironically, John McCain actually wasn't born in the United States either, although not much fuss was ever made about this. He was born in the canal zone in Panama, and at the time of his birth was not a natural born citizen of the United States. Subsequent laws retroactively granted people born in the Canal zone citizenship. Whether that actually qualifies as "natural born citizen" is arguable.
Its my understanding that if a pregnant American couple (both born in America, both residing in America, both American citizens) were to visit friends in Canada, and ended up giving birth in Canada, the child would be recognized as an American citizen, but would not qualify to be president / vice president.
In the high school I attended in the 80s, there was no money for chemicals in chemistry, so we used water and food items. "See, kids, if that half-gram of salt had been pure sodium, the water would have fizzed, so write "SAW FIZZING REACTION" in your books." Quickly put the lids we're calling stoppers over the paper coffee cups we're pretending are beakers, and do you remember what would happen if we had lit the end of the straw we're pretending is a glass tube protruding through the imaginary stopper? Jimmy? That's right - flame, because the result is, Jane? Yes, that's right, hydrogen. Excellent. Now rinse out your cups and set them back on the towel over by the radiator so I can reuse them for test tubes tomorrow." I'll say one thing, they did teach us imagination.
I don't know what level the kids will be involved in. If they're old enough, maybe they'll work in the metals shop cutting or at least polishing their own shield? Maybe some of them will work in the wood shop helping to build the ship, and get involved in tarring the joints and other parts of the project?
And given the purpose of this episode, I'll be deeply, utterly surprised if I don't see a "CONFIRMED" sign at the end of the episode.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Agreed. When I was in high school, my chemistry teacher, Jim Fixx, let me try running a bunsen burner on gas generated by flasks of zinc and HCl.
Once.
What I learned was that there is a good reason for flashback preventers. A splendid time was had by all.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
You just Godwined in one of the most ignorant ways possible.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Seahawks 12th man effect.
"But the lasting memory of that November afternoon was the Giants' 11 false start penalties, when New York's offensive line was unable to decipher Eli Manning's hand gestures and silent count." (due to fan noise.)
http://www.komonews.com/sports/106809068.html
From Wikipedia:
"Qwest Field in Seattle has been architecturally designed to be the loudest stadium in the NFL. This has caused 2.83 false starts per game, which is the highest in the NFL since 2005. The Decibel level at Qwest Field is a whopping 112 dB, only 18 dB below the roar of a Boeing 747."
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
So that's what kids' science education is boiling down to? Standing still and holding a mirror?
I suppose if they turned it into an analysis of ADHD medication tested by trying to hold a mirror still...
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
The GP obviously lives in an urban area and thus is unaware of the existence of volunteer fire departments. His narrow world view prevents him from conceiving of a world where critical services could be provided without government largess or control.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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.
The president appears very weak on his job now. Showing up on a TV show at this point doesn't help that image at all. And he'll deserve it. Don't tell me this is part of his job, that he's doing this to promote science. That's just incredibly retarded.
Survival kits have signal mirrors with a sighting mechanism and no moving parts that allows the user to shine the sun's reflection directly onto the target (even a distant moving airplane)
Not really. The sighting mechanism is not a "sight" in the sense of one found on rifles, etc. Its not accurate enough to hold on a target, at best it can help you get into the general area so you can sweep around this area and accidentally hit the aircraft from time to time. You may look through the sight but you still often need to hold out your free hand and form a V with your fingers. You put the target inside this V and sweep the mirror back and forth. You look for the reflections on your two fingers to make sure the line formed by these points crosses the target.
:-)
Signal mirrors are cheap. Get two, one for your backpack, boat, aircraft, etc and a second one to peal off the protective tape and play with. They are simple devices but they take a little practice, try it out with a friend in a neighborhood park, football field, etc.
Then again, perhaps I missed some great breakthrough in signal mirror technology since I was in the scouts.
Sounds pretty accurate to me. The self serving attitude of libertarians usually results in the type of temper tantrum you displayed when exposed to reality, so we aren't surprised at that either. Especially those of us who have raised young children.
They should have had him on with his long-form birth-certificate to bust the myth that Obama is not a citizen! I would pay to see that one!
But the fact that the story only appeared over a thousand years after the lifetime of Archimedes or any possible eyewitness pretty much tells us everything we need to know.
Try barely 700 (Archimedes died 212 BC, first writer to attribute the mirror-based death-ray to him lived 474-558 AD). Your point is sound, though. That's still an awful long time for a literate people to remember something without writing it down.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Including the real estate on which the fire department facilities are located and the infrastructure they use to transport the equipment from their to your home?
"In what way is that not socially liberal?"
Well, he opposes gay marriage.
Maintaining basic law and order when someone does something you don't like, right? After all, when someone expects you to act like a responsible human being, they are just going way too far.
The Professor was a genius in the coconut-engineering arts, and I will not stand idly by while his good name is besmirched.
I challenge the Mythbusters to debunk that myth without resorting to pedantry.* Coconut milk is mildly acidic electrolytic solution. If you can power electronics using lemons and potatoes, you can power a radio using coconuts. Frankly, I don't think that it even constitutes a good challenge. Scale it up to charging the battery for the engine(s) on the S.S. Minnow and you might have something Mythbusters worthy.
*The power in these batteries comes from a redox reaction between the anode and cathode materials, rather than the food. You could power your radio with electrodes placed in saltwater rather than any of the lemons, potatoes, or coconuts and there's not going to be any make-it-or-break-it difference. However, coconut-engineering skills would have been more uniquely marketable to the likes of Tina Louise and Dawn Wells. Engineering might and business acumen all in one. Hail Roy Hinkley!
We already know the President likes a human backdrop: soldiers, doctors, union members... you get the idea.
Wouldn't a backdrop of 500 kids be great? 500 kids holding mirrors, cackling gleefully as they accidentally ignite the President and his teleprompter.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The implication in the Constitution is that you must be physically born in the U.S. The irony of that, however, is that this is a problem for John McCain *WAY* more than for Obama. McCain was born in Panama (no controversy about it). It's only by the somewhat dubious argument that "Well, *technically* a military base is considered U.S. soil" that he got around that issue to argue he was born in the U.S. I'm not so sure Panama (or any other country where we have bases) would be so quick to agree.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
So you need 500 extras to hold mirrors...
Why start your recruitment with the President? Wouldn't any junior high science teacher from So Cal be just as effective in obtaining bodies?
Show up on any College campus (bring Kari) and you will easily get 500 volunteers far more likely to be able to follow directions than school kids.
It seems a thin excuse for Obama to get some face time with an educational ruse. Which way did the money flow?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Basic law and order is dealing with those who physically abuse others and fail to respect other's property rights.
I'm not quite sure where libertarians have objected to being expected to behave like a responsible human being. I think you may be mistaking libertarians for anarchists.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Last time they "debunked" it, they used 127 square feet of mirrors. If they use 500 typical hoplite shields (~24" diameter), that's 1,570 square feet. Even if the kids all have a 1 sqft mirror, that's quadruple the intensity the mythbusters debunked last time, or roughly equivalent to Ioannis Sakkas's experiment which set the wood on fire in mere seconds.
Depends - is the government going to offer a refund of all taxes for all services provided over the span of the libertarians lifetime?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
He did show what may be a vestigial spine the other day by giving a big F-U to his base - saying something along the lines of "a little relief for everybody is better than no relief at all for the lower and middle classes". The dems are frantically trying to circumvent this the same way they did health care - by skipping the rectifying of the two bills and passing the senate bill as-is while they still have the majority.
Perhaps he can actually begin to grow a whole spine from this experience. Who knows? I was pretty disappointed with his performance on health care (I was behind him after his big speech, but in the following months it just got worse and worse), maybe he'll do a little better now that it's clear his base alone won't get him re-elected in 2012.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
The implication in the Constitution is that you must be physically born in the U.S.
I'm sorry, but that's just not correct.
There's no such stipulation in the US Constitution.
It's not a problem for McCain. It's not a problem for Obama. Whether he was born in Hawaii, Kenya or on the moon. The only way to constitutionally disqualify him is to prove that someone else was his mother.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
So when a libertarian's house is on fire and the firefighters show up, do they say "No, that's ok, I'm a libertarian."?
You've confused "libertarian" with "anarchist". But don't let ignorance hold you back.
All they'll prove is it's nearly impossible to get 500 kids with mirrors to simultaneously focus on the same thing. Hell, it'll be tough enough to get 500 kids to stand still at the same time. the reality is it's nearly impossible for more than a couple of people to focus reflections on the same spot because there's no visual reference to the point of aim once the target area is light saturated.
A wooden gun cannot withstand the forces generated by a pistol. They have already tested similar myths, mostly involving cannons, and they either explode (harming the operator more than the target) or perform extremely poorly (i.e. non-lethal).
Hell, even iron isn't very good, have you seen how thick the barrels have to be on old iron cannons? They are huge.
Today we use steel, which is much stronger than unalloyed iron, which is much stronger than the strongest hardwood.
Now, you might be able to make a gun out of composite materials (carbon fiber and ceramics, probably) that could withstand the forces generated yet make it through security, but why do that when you could probably find a way to hide a real gun in your carry-on. All you have to do is fool the screener, it would be a lot easier than developing a gun that could pass through a metal detector.
The full body X-Ray would catch such a thing anyway.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
I think everyone is missing the obvious: the mirror tactic might conceivably have some value, even if it is useless as a "heat ray".
Fire and ships and war were not new. The Greeks knew plenty about how deadly burning mixtures of liquids could be against a ship, and how to effectively employ such weapons against a ship one or two hundred feet away is really no mystery.
If the story has any truth to it, the real advantage would be to harass the eyes of the archers on the ship, thereby allowing the archers of Syracuse to calmly and accurately rain death upon the nearest ships. What that would really boil down to is that the Roman soldiers would have a hell of a time fighting the fires, while crawling on their bellies ducking arrows, their own archers already all dead.
A minor heat ray effect might plausibly help stoke the otherwise existing fires on board, even if insufficient to cause spontaneous ignition. Black sails would be a plus here.
If they think they're learning science from mythbusters, they've already got problems.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
Well if they bust the myth that President Obama is pro-applied science (see just about everything he's done relating to science), or President Obama uses this myth as a chance to change is position of the AirBorne Laser program then I'll be happy.
You realize it's perfectly rational to think Obama sucks monkey testicles without having to believe Bush was the second coming.
In fact the two are very similar, generally speaking. Bush was on one side of the fence, Obama is on the other. They are both standing at the fence and bullshitting, though.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
The President's appearance in media would be more appropriate in "Jackass 4: The Movie" rather than "Myth Busters (The Myth Busted For the Third Time).
Be More, Be Manly, The Manly Geek Ubergeek Extraordinaire Blogger: www.manlygeek.com/blog Podcaster: podcast.man
People who did this spread their genes more, so now we have more descendants from such people than from revolters. It's also the reason men like clearly colored blondes, even though we know the color os artificial. Evolution 101.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
Healthcare, economy all mere distractions until he can get his hands on a Death Ray. Following in the steps of Ronald Ray-gun?
KARI: How are we going to test this myth?
GRANT: Well, since we can't use actual libertarians, we'll just have to get some kind of realistic libertarian substitute, and see if it declares that it is a libertarian before being asked.
TORY: Ooh! You know what this means, right?
KARI: Oh no. Please tell me we're not using pig heads again, are we?
TORY (simultaneously): It means we get to use pig heads!
KARI: Remember, folks, don't try producing artificial libertarians at home.
GRANT: It's far too dangerous.
TORY: We're what you'd call "experts."
Neither of you are correct. The short answer is, we’re just not sure.
Birthright citizenship in the United States#Eligibility for office of President:
According to the Constitution of the United States only natural born citizens are eligible to serve as President of the United States or as Vice President. The text of the Constitution does not define what is meant by natural born: in particular it does not specify whether there is any distinction to be made between persons whose citizenship is based on jus sanguinis (parentage) and those whose citizenship is based on jus soli (birthplace)
As a result, controversies have erupted over the eligibility of a number of candidates for the office. These questions arise particularly when a candidate is an American citizen by jus sanguinis birthright, but was born outside of the territory of the United States.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
As a Seahawks fan, I have to say that your implication that the 12th man effect is improving their game is very depressing to me. Without the 12th man, they'd suck even more than they do.
The boats back then were likely waterproofed using a highly flammable tar mixture. It's not at all farfetched that something like this would work - assuming you could get enough mirrors.
Think of it as a terror weapon - you are in the attacking fleet, all of the sudden a huge area of the defending army shines a bright light and one ship bursts into flames.
Maybe the sailors knew about flaming arrows but this would have seemed like the gods were on the side of the defenders.
Heck, maybe they did the mirrors and the flaming arrows; it would still be effective as a weapon because it would sow fear and uncertainty.
Don't forget the need for calm waters and the the sailors and soldiers in the attacking boats NOT tossing the occasional bucket of water on the burn point over the course of two hours.
If I was going to do the mirror thing, I think I'd concentrate more on blinding any navigators and hope they end up blundering into rocks, reefs, or other obstruction, possibly man-made. Even each other.
I don't read AC A human right
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 siege of Syracuse was NOT an easy engagement - for either side. Marcellus was a battle proven commander, having already handed Hannibal his first defeat at the Romans' lowest point of the war. After the young Sicilian king Hieronymus' assassination, Syracuse was in the hands of Carthaginian defectors, who knew their treachery left little hope for a truce. The city itself, even today, has an exceptionally well-formed harbor for defense against naval attacks. Archimedes had constructed other military technologies which relied on torque and leverage to destroy ships by literally grasping and hoisting them out of the water only to drop them into the shoals, and some type of catapult which could hurl stones probably capable of smashing a hull.
http://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Siege/Livy.html
Give Archimedes a little credit for applied science. The screw-pump and the forensic use of density to assay gold are worthy historical accomplishments. I don't think it's at all out of the realm of possibility that this court scientist had the resources, talent, and authority to experiment with and contrive a crude laser.
That's assuming they manage to get the same concentration on the targeting.
Remember, attacking warships are going to be moving. Still, I'd imagine that a city might be about to come up with more than 500 soldiers, and they'll be a little more dedicated to practicing their aim than kids.
After that, though, you're back to the attackers wetting their boats down first, using their own shields as mirrors, and having multiple boats.
I wouldn't be surprised if it'd been used as a blinding/harrassing tactic though. Even getting the attacking boats to lose synchronization on their landing could make a big difference in the fight.
I don't read AC A human right
I had a similar experiance in high school, only I had 2 flasks stacked one on top of the other and I was using the gas to blow the top beaker into the air. Mr. Ericson threw down the gauntlet and said if I was going to do that in his lab, I'd better produce a calibration curve to maximize the explosion.
The only confusion is on the part of those who wish to subvert the obvious meaning of the text of the constitution. I find it amusing that both the left and the right engage in this activity.
The left acted like they were genuinely surprised when the SCOTUS decided that the Second Amendment actually means what it says it means. Now, the hard right is making a fool of itself over this birther nonsense.
Whether you're a citizen by geography of your birth or your lineage, if you're a citizen on the day of your birth, you're clearly a natural born citizen.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
So when I say liberal democrats are looking to turn the US into a communist labor camp should right up there with the "accuracy" rating.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
I think that Lord Kano is still more right though. It says 'natural born', being born a citizen is good enough for me. Whether it's in country or out of country to a US Citizen parent.
I personally think it's funny that for all the Birther's ranting, if you DQ'd Obama you'd logically have to DQ McCain.
I don't read AC A human right
I don't even really care about the funding; my fire department got a fair bit of federal funding, but said funding mostly went to cover federal firefighting requirements. If they'd stayed out of it our equipment would have been a bit more 'hillbilly', but still functional for a fraction of the price.
As a member of the volunteer fire department, do people really expect me to let my own house burn down because of some principle?
That's the other thing - I might disagree with certain policies, but as long as I'm helping to pay for them I might as well take advantage of them to get SOME of my money back.
I don't read AC A human right
Ad-hominem.
Whatever my mental state, can you actually respond to anything I just said?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The location of birth matters because it's tied to the requirements for the office of President.
But that's exactly my point -- why is this a requirement? Why should it be a requirement for anything, let alone the office of the POTUS?
So much for "All men are created equal..."
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
As you might not know, It matters because you have to be born in the united states to be eligible to be president. Its not "important" in any practical sense, but its in the "rules".
I do know that, and I may not have been clear, but that was entirely my point -- why is it in the rules? If you were writing the rules, why would you ever include anything like this?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
They also have some new material to work with, what with that Hotel cum Death Ray story from a few months back.
Thank you. That's exactly the example I was trying to remember.
I'm actually an M's fan so my life really sucks.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
You don't need to assume everybody is out to get you, you know, relax, you'll leave a healthier life.
You can't handle the truth.
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!
How do you know what his principals are?
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
What I don't get is why people expect to raise the temperature all the way up to 300C so the ship will burst into flames,
Hell.. remember that Hotel in Las Vegas that did it accidentally?
With the limited accounts to be had and limited info about the circumstances, there are so many possibilities that the myth is impossible to "bust"; without trying to tie the concept down to something specific that was never really claimed.
Perhaps a much lower temperature would suffice, if there were flammables on deck, such as parafin oil, kerosene, alcohol, or paper.
Perhaps the assumption the "death ray" is one device is an unreasonable assumption. As far as I know "death glass" translates to "glass", not "mirror". A child can produce the experiment using a simple magnifying glass and a sheet of paper.
e.g. What happens when you have multiple devices concentrating sunlight and shining it on another device on a lens?
Perhaps the assumption the death ray concentrated sunlight is an unreasonable assumption. chemicals that could have been burned or reacted to produce higher energy light
Who's to say Archimedes wasn't using a lens to focus the beam of a high-powered laser he had somehow come up with? :)
Could always debunk the myth of Sarah Palin having a brain.
I beleive it is there primarily so England royalty couldn't send their kids over to run in an election.
This myth using signal mirrors but they probably won't. (Because from what I remember the problem was aiming them and a signal mirror would make aiming it easier.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
I'm guessing he would have already compared set rates with other competitors and filed a contract with one of them for X amount of dollars a month for "fire insurance." Or maybe he would just have house insurance that covers fire damages and not give a crap if his house burned down, since he would get a brand new one with new stuff from the insurance money.
Just speculation. I'm not a libertarian.
Whatever floats your boat.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
That's what you got from the post? Teleprompter jokes? Are you 'disinterested' in the rather poignant insight to Obama's repeated tactic of gathering a group of 'X' people who appear to support him with unwavering resolve? You didn't happen to note the manipulation of perceptions? And it didn't even cross your mind that this is occuring in the middle of several national crisis which one might think would warrant greater attention from our President than a rather transparent publicity stunt?
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
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).
Indeed. This is exactly what is wrong with Mythbusters and the attitude surrounding scientific criticism and debate.
Rather than getting people to think about it and perform things themselves the central premise of that show is that they come up with some contrived situation that is quite often questionable and then tell everyone that the 'myth' is busted. No debate about it. I remember them doing a moon landing one a while back that I don't think actually helped the cause of debunking moon landing accusations. The guy in it had an astronaut figure that he confidently told us was Neil Armstrong because he had the orange flashes on his suit, but that's inaccurate because those only came in in later missions when they realised they had an identification problem. Little things like that tend to propogate from this kind of stuff - "We've proved it, we're right, anything we say goes, no fact checking or revisiting necessary. If you disagree with us it's a conspiracy theory".
The location of birth matters because it's tied to the requirements for the office of President.
It's not tied as in mandatory. It is a sufficient but not necessary condition.
Interestingly, doesn't McCain fail that one as well by being born in Panama? Note: Specifically not in military base i Panama, because a US military base is considered US soil.
No, because he specifically was born on a military base.
The real question is what defines "natural born"?
A natural born citizen is anyone who is a citizen as a fact of birth. If you are born on U.S. soil, or the child of a U.S. citizen, then that fact makes you a citizen. You are a natural born citizen.
The enemies of Democracy are
The only possible reason to use this particular myth is so you can get 500 kids involved, each holding a mirror,
So that Obama can see his own smiling face beaming back at him from atop 500 kids' necks? Now that's Narcissism.
They also have some new material to work with, what with that Hotel cum Death Ray story from a few months back.
Thank you. That's exactly the example I was trying to remember.
I'm glad you clicked on that link for us. I didn't want to.
This is exactly as accurate as a liberal being presented with a decision on a tax cut always voting "grape".
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
That might be part of it, but I think much of the black/white (no grey), love/hate binary pattern in US politics has been fabricated intentionally from a variety of fully funded sources.
Heritage foundation, cato institute, paid bloggers, and dozens more "think tanks" are in continual spin mode. Finding real unbiased facts about any given issue has gotten difficult for the average citizen (or at least time consuming, which means the majority won't bother with) due to all the spin.
If every point of view can claim an equal amount of "proof" it naturally leads to us/them mentalities, and to the rise of fox news/msnbc which thrive on the ratings that this competition of ideas produces.
Take the very simple questions like:
Does cutting taxes always stimulate an economy and produce jobs? If so how much for each point cut? If in some situations it does not, why and under what circumstances?
Surely we have enough historical data and enough (truly unbiased, non political ) PhD's in economics to get an answer to that set of questions. But try using google to get an answer, or heaven forbid watch the news to try to find the answer. I'll guarantee that you won't be able to get anything accurate (if you do, you aren't using generic terms that most people would use and likely have google skillz:))
In the absence of real objective facts from unbiased reporters, and with each side feeling confident in their set of evidence for "whatever", we've moved almost to a faith based system. At least for average Americans. It is two ideologies, and people subscribe to them in a very similar fashion to choosing a religion.
Without greyness, everything naturally becomes extreme:
Small government: good in every way for all aspects, all the time, the smaller the better!
Low taxes: Should be zero taxes! Smaller is always better!
etc.. etc..
Of course not, but then again, you seem to be familiar with spewing out nonsense and expecting it to be taken seriously. Another thing that people who have raised young children are experienced at dealing with.
A Libertarian is nothing more than an anarchists who wants police protection from their slaves.
Will he bring his Birth Suffaticket? :-)
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I don't have a document from my birth. It's been long since lost. Instead, I have what most people have, a reprint from the official record holder, the State government.
My confusion is why the birthers think the Republicans are in on this. As the records were verified by the Republican governor of HI. So why are the parties that can't agree whether a lightbulb is on working together so well in this conspiracy with nary a leak?
If you want to prove him not a citizen, show the document from Mars (or wherever you are asserting he was born) to prove he's an alien. If you can't, then why should we believe the lying sacks of shit who won't believe anyone else?
Learn to love Alaska
Yeah, if they manage to get the president, they should have tackled some tougher myths. Like does trickle down economics actually work.
Well, maybe your solution would appear too much like Obama was attempting to bring back child labor. Wait a minute, it said school children will be holding the mirrors- maybe that is the point, to get kids back into the work force so America can start being competitive in the manufacturing industry like china.
Nah.. That can't be it.,
Peasants flocked to their kings as not to piss them off and suffer their wrath. Well, that and you are lead to believe that the kind or president is so important that he doesn't have time for the likes of you. When that changes, it does get somewhat exciting.
It could be worse, you could be stuck in Detroit.
Maybe he is a Muslim/atheist/communist/fascist/Maoist/devil worshiper
You realize at least three of those are contradictory, right? There's no "maybe" about it -- he cannot possibly be all of those things.
Commas are "and" or "or". Slashes are exclusively "exclusive or"
"rather poignant insight" Lol. This isn't "Obama's repeated tactic," every president has done this kind of thing. And every president does media events, makes appeals, etc. And the fact that you think for the 120 minutes he spent on set, there was no one behind the wheel (so-to-speak) of the country, shows just how ignorant you are. Ugh, these Fox News talking points have spread way too far.
"2. Newspaper article"
What newspaper article might this be then?
The birth announcements in the local newspapers at the time?
The birth announcements that the NEWSPAPERS at the time ONLY got from the HAWAII DEPT. OF HEALTH?
That the "newspaper article" you're citing as some half-assed "evidence" against President Obama being a natural born American citizen?
Teabaggers: A never ending source of natural born idiocy.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
"Mirrors should reflect a little before throwing back images. -- Jean Cocteau"
Is this about Obama, or the Myth Busters? I'm confused...
How about "bill my insurance company"?
Seems pretty obvious to me that these services should be paid for by insurance. Firefighting insurance becomes like liability insurance. A libertarian would argue that you don't have to carry such insurance, but if you don't, then you are liable for any damage caused by a fire that spreads from your property. The insurance rate would be significantly less (and response times and success rates better) than the taxes you are paying now for fire protection due to efficiencies created by competition. Also, since the cost for fires are no longer absorbed by society, people are more likely to build fireproof homes to get lower rates.
The fact that people can't see any alternative to government services is simply astonishing to me.
I like that one. What's the effect of a single flaming arrow on a ship? Not much. What's the effect of heating a ship to 250 C or so? Not much. So, what happens if you heat the ship (coated in flammable tar) and then apply a single flaming arrow to the hottest point?
Though part of the magic of the story was that it worked at ranges greater than arrows. But again, that's assuming the arrows were mass-shot, and if the heat primed it so that only one hit was needed for a large fire to start instantly, someone could sneak in while they are distracted and hit them with the one flaming arrow or spray them with something more flammable.
Learn to love Alaska
The difference is that you are wrong.
Learn to love Alaska
Feeling bitter that your hero has worse ratings than Bush or something? Well I understand. But you miss the numerous jokes that are made at his expense by people when he uses a teleprompter and fails miserably at it.
Back to your koolaid.
Om, nomnomnom...
I'm not quite sure where libertarians have objected to being expected to behave like a responsible human being.
They don't object to being expected to behave responsibly, but they are against requiring it. It would be perfectly legal to use your neighbor's driveway as a toilet, and if they don't like it, they'll need to calculate a loss, justify it, and take you to court over it. But it wouldn't be a criminal issue, so the government wouldn't step in except as arbitrator once someone starts the civil suit.
Personally, I think that's so absurd as to be a parody, but I've heard libertarians defend ideas that meant that exact same thing, though presented with a less offensive example.
Learn to love Alaska
You've confused "libertarian" with "anarchist".
The only difference is that the libertarian is the idealist and the anarchist is the realist. Their desires and the results of those desires are the same. The only difference is the understanding of the consequences of their desires.
Learn to love Alaska
they aren't going for accuracy as much as they are reasonably plausible tests that look good when filmed, scientific rigor doesn't sell, but at least they pay it lip service
My understanding is that they do a lot more testing than what makes it onscreen (I seem to recall an interview saying they turn in 25-30 hours of footage for each show), and they just grab the cool parts for the show (because.. um.. I wants my booms?)
I've never had any major complaints about the "science", considering that most of the premises are fairly loose to begin with. It's not like they're trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe or anything.
So you post vitriol, then tell others to be nice when they point out you are wrong on all counts? Hypocritical much? From what I can tell, that's a requirement for libertarians anyway.
Learn to love Alaska
We already know the President likes a human backdrop: soldiers, doctors, union members... you get the idea.
Is there a politician alive who doesn't prefer a backdrop of "supporters" whenever they can arrange one?
I was wondering if that's why they were going for it a third time - they haven't managed to hit the usual finisher of "what would it take to make it work?" that they like to have. (i.e., they haven't managed to build a solar-powered death ray). Five hundred kids isn't going to make it "plausible" though, since five hundred archers would be far more effective.
The location of birth matters because it's tied to the requirements for the office of President.
No, it's not. One must be a citizen at birth to be president. Obama was born to an American citizen. It doesn't matter where he was born, he was born a US citizen and is thus eligible.
The real question is what defines "natural born"?
The common definition, as well as the Supreme Court's definition is someone who is a citizen at the time of birth. I've never seen anything contradicting that. Since both Obama and McCain are considered to be citizens from birth, they are both eligible. I've never seen an argument otherwise that has any legal basis, have you?
Learn to love Alaska
Its my understanding that if a pregnant American couple (both born in America, both residing in America, both American citizens) were to visit friends in Canada, and ended up giving birth in Canada, the child would be recognized as an American citizen, but would not qualify to be president / vice president.
The legal rules are such that if you are considered at the time you run to have been a US citizen at the time of your birth you are a natural born citizen. Obama, even if born in Kenya, was born to an American mother and would have been able to run. Same with McCain.
How do I know? I have a child born in a foreign country who has a certificate stating "natural born citizen" status.
Learn to love Alaska
Trust a Teabagging know-nothing to assume that I consider President Obama my "leader".
But then, the Randroid/Teabagger lives in a world of simplistic assumptions and willful ignorance.
Speaking of "uses a teleprompter and fails miserably at it"
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me, you can’t get fooled again.” —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
Refudiate that, Teabagger.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
Randroids/Teabaggers with modpoints don't like it when their fantasies about teleprompters get shattered by reality.
Speaking of reality:
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me, you can’t get fooled again.” —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
You kidding? A weapon of unimaginable power, like setting ships on fire by having shiny mirrors? They might've thought Archimedes had harnessed the power of the sun! (Which he would've done to get this to work)
There is no -1 Disagree.
Have you seen the show? You're giving more credit than is due in suggesting any intent to teach or learn anything at all, let alone science. 500 bored, unfocused child volunteers as an analogue for an experienced, disciplined military unit? It's entertainment, not science. The goal is never really to prove or to disprove anything, it's to destroy stuff. The *cough* science *cough* is there to provide an excuse for destroying it. That's why when a few ounces of some common household substance doesn't blow something up you find them substituting 400 pounds of high explosive before show's end.
Making the world a better place, one psychotic episode at a time.
... the Myth that being popular, makes you talented? ;-)
+++OK ATH
49ers fan. These days I have both of you beat.
So when anyone disproves the points you make, you just dismiss it as nothing more than substanceless ridicule?
It worked in 1973. Range was only 50m, but any experiments should be based off this one rather than Adam And Jamie's failures
But it needs some explosions for mythbuster... I am sure if you include the military or NASA in your quest for truth, you can add some literal fireworks.
It didn't need to work, the enemy just needed to think it did
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
So that's what kids' science education is boiling down to? Standing still and holding a mirror?
I dunno, I think having Mythbusters successfully "busting" themselves would be a worthwhile education for most kids who don't realize how authoritative Mythbusters should be (not much to not at all).
They're mainly about entertainment, much like Top Gear is mainly about entertainment.
Woah! So you have to be at least 223 years old?
"The Milliard Gargantubrain? A mere abacus - mention it not."
How about Obama making a cameo appearance with Julian Assange at a Wikileaks press conference once Julian is sprung? The old Mythbusters is getting repetitive. The new reality show version of myth busting is more exciting and has more real drama. Julian can introduce Obama in case people have forgotten who Obama is. :-)
I was hoping they were going to Mythbust "Obama was born in Kenya", "Obama is a Muslim", or even more laughably, "Obama is a Socialist".
Keep in mind too that the hotel in Las Vegas actually had an anti-reflective coating, while available technology of the day would produce the opposite.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I hope Adam took the opportunity to tell him the TSA's procedures are a bad joke, and ask him to commit to doing something about it.
Yes, “loosely” based on English common law. It got a lot of stuff right, and we didn’t change it, except where it didn’t, and we did. Hence “loosely”.
So, where did we differ? Well, in particular, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution were meant to address some of the deficiencies.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
All presidents in living memory have used (and depended on) teleprompters. Can we stop pretending this is something new or meaningful?
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
You obviously don't watch the show very regularly. They FREQUENTLY revisit myths they had previously "busted," and have proven remarkably open to criticism of their tests. This is, after all, the third time they've revisited this particular myth. The first time, they busted it. But when students at MIT complained that they didn't do it right, they not only agreed to revisit it, but also flew said students out to San Fransisco to test it in person.
They've even been known to reverse themselves on numerous occasions (though not on this particular myth).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I don't believe for a second that the three of them were in the same room for that whole conversation.
Technoli
There isn't a promise of firefighters being nearby though. If people had the choice of not paying for firefighters/police, they probably wouldn't.
If only a handful of people are paying for fire protection, that isn't enough to attract enough people and equipment to man a firestation 24/7.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
They used period tar pitch in the first test.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I think the problem is scale though. Volunteers have other jobs and are on call for emergencies (which should be rare). The larger the population, the more fire calls. Not to mention the complex situations that will come up. Chemical/Electrical fires and large building fires (need more water than what a truck can carry.. which means a fire hydrant system needs to be in place).
Critical services can be provided without government, you're right. But can you trust that part-time firefighters and police will arrive asap and save you, or your family, or your home if they are just volunteering to do so? What if the police officer doesn't like you? It's not his job to save you afterall, it's just his hobby.
I prefer paid professionals for critical services. Which means they are training how to better do their job when they aren't putting out fires or answering a call.
I also prefer critical services that aren't run as a business. Trying to squeeze the most ammount of work from the most minimal ammount of people. Getting the job done while spending the least ammount on equipment. I like redundency and spare assets while working in critical situations. Because shit breaks and people make mistakes. But you are right, there is a certain level of sanity required to prevent bloat.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
I wouldn't expect so ... there's prior art on that.
"Good news, everyone!"
You see, as I understood it, McCain was born in Panama City, not on the base itself. In Panama City he would have been born on foreign soil, regardless of where his father was stationed.
If the definition of "natural born citizen" is anyone who is a citizen at the time of their birth, then why would the birthers even try their particular argument against Obama? His mother was a US citizen, so he is. Full stop. I had always assumed that their argument fell into semantics over the phrase "natural born citizen" as used in the Constitution having never actually been tested as such and claiming that being born outside our borders was sufficient to not be "natural born."
Remember, attacking warships are going to be moving.
They were anchored according to Lucian.
After that, though, you're back to the attackers wetting their boats down first, using their own shields as mirrors, and having multiple boats.
Wetting them down first is exactly what they did, and that kept flaming arrows from burning them, but focused light can dry ships out. Focused light that can light wood on fire in seconds can dry wood out pretty damn quickly. I'm not quite sure what your point is about multiple boats.
Even getting the attacking boats to lose synchronization on their landing could make a big difference in the fight.
Landing? Syracusae (at least the core of the city, Ortygia) was an island surrounded by huge walls. There was nowhere to land. Besides, Archimedes also built long, medium, and short rang artillery ensuring that by the time any attacker got to the walls, they were pretty much already defeated.
since five hundred archers would be far more effective.
Sure, if the ships are in arrow range, and they haven't wet everything down first.
My issues with the test is the material of the sail, and the lack of other inflammable materials that would have been on an actually ship.
And yes, they would sue a weapons under those condition, along with other weapons. I'm not saying they did
What we do know, is it got might uncomfortable on the ship, and it it was sailing in and a bunch of reflective targets increased the area around the ship to 150 degrees, it may well have cause enough fear and discomfort to prevent an attack.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
OTOH, they would have had a very good idea of wear the ships were going to be, and been prepared for a spot. But yea, it's more that if it did stop a navy, it was do to the increase temperature and blinding.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Ot maybe the President wasn't happy with the previous tests and left it up to the mythbuster to choose a new method.
Oh wait, that is it exactly.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
a) he didn't gather the kids, or even say they should use them
b) every politician surrounds themselves with people who agree.
c) in this case he DIDN'T do that.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Unsubstantial?
I think the US govt's reaction to Wikileaks has made it very clear just how mythical is the image it would like the world (and its own citizens) to believe of it's adherence to liberty, freedom of speech and the rule of law.
You sir, may or may not be an idiot, however, I feel certain you are at least no genius.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
I'm part liberal and part libertarian. I want the government to provide me with all the services that I want and need. I want them to leave me the hell alone. And I want them to tax the hell out of corporations and regulate the hell out of them.
since five hundred archers would be far more effective.
Sure, if the ships are in arrow range, and they haven't wet everything down first.
My understanding was that the mirrors weren't effective at a significantly greater range than archers. And wetting down the ship won't protect you from puncture wounds, even if you're protected from the fire.
You've confused "libertarian" with "anarchist". The only difference is that the libertarian is the idealist and the anarchist is the realist. Their desires and the results of those desires are the same. The only difference is the understanding of the consequences of their desires.
That's like saying the only difference between democrats and republicans is the animal on their bumper stickers. It's pithy, but displays a surprising amount of political ignorance.
I am pretty sure this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures#Marcus_Licinius_Crassus
was the first libertarian. Nice.
Besides the fact that he was a nasty peice of work (and that you think libertarians are as well), I cannot see why you think he was a libertarian. He sounds like a Democrat to me.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Libertarians believe in less government. The example listed two posts ago was the fire department. The counter one post ago was the volunteer fire department.
This guy made arguably the most money in the entire world, ever, by basically running a private fire company and extorting money from his neighbors.
While a bit of a stretch, that is the private sector taking over that piece of business which would be very much in line with libertarian thinking.
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Libertarians. Some are overly idealistic (not necessarily a bad thing), and have not thought things through. Smaller government as a principle is fine if your OK with the consequences.
Its like that stupid poll that they do every so often, where people list all the services they want. They they put how much tax they are willing to pay. Or which services they are willing to give up to reduce their taxes, etc... Everyone wants every service for free with no taxes, its just unrealistic. So while a push for smaller Gov I think is a laudable quest, I find most that have it completely unrealistic about their demands about the consequences. Anyway that's just me.
Seems interesting, I'll look into that further.
At first glance though, I'm not sure how those systems would combat misinformation.
You're pretty good at the insults, especially when you have no idea that you're talking to a Canuck. What's to refute? Other than you're a blind partisan hack, frothing wildly at the mouth.
Om, nomnomnom...
YOU WIN!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
And yet, not all of these things are mutually exclusive, only some of them.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The original forefathers including your favorite, Thomas Jefferson, even said that Christianity has the best values for our country to follow.
Actually, Franklin was my favorite.
And, in fact, Thomas Jefferson said several things which might be relevant: "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law." That's in addition to the potentially misleading "the Christian philosophy - the most sublime and benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man..."
You'll note that the only mention of religion of any kind in the Constitution and in all 27 amendments is in the First Amendment, which establishes that "Wall of Separation," and in the main body of the Constitution, to explicitly prevent any religious test for public office. If they really wanted this to be a Christian nation, why is the word "Christian" -- let alone "Christ", "Creator", "Jesus", or "God" -- entirely missing from the founding document they wrote to define this nation?
It does matter where he was born based upon the constitution.
And my question is why this matters, in general.
Since you don't know the actual rules,
I know the rules. I'm questioning why it mattered in the first place -- why was "natural born citizen" ever part of the rules? What relevance can it possibly have to how well someone serves the office of the POTUS?
If your claim is that it only matters because it's in the rules, fine, but that's kind of circular and would tend to suggest the rules should be amended.
He's done interesting things for sure, however, not in the best benefit for this country.
How is this relevant to anything we were discussing?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
At least with the political party, what they say they will do doesn't match the other, even if the actions are indistinguishable. For the libertarian and anarchist, what they say they'll do match almost exactly. They just disagree about what the effect will be.
Learn to love Alaska
Second ad-hom. Guess you can't.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Oh, what a moron you are, and that's not any ad hominem, it's just an observation, maybe you can work on that.
This:
Well, you're a Libertarian. No one is free-market-oriented enough for you.
- THAT is loaded with fallacies, if you want to go that road.
The rest - you are just a social retard and have trouble parsing sentences.
You can't handle the truth.
At least with the political party, what they say they will do doesn't match the other, even if the actions are indistinguishable. For the libertarian and anarchist, what they say they'll do match almost exactly. They just disagree about what the effect will be.
I'll just say again, you're confusing "libertarian" with "anarchist" and the two aren't remotely similar in philosophy or intention, except so far as fringes of both might overlap, which can be said about any political party.
The fact that you keep doing so tells me you have an agenda that simple wikipedia links won't fix.
And I forgot, they throw childish temper tantrums when the grownups call them out. Now go to your room and clean it. Maybe I'll let you have desert if you do a good job and learn not to backtalk.
I'll just say again, you're confusing "libertarian" with "anarchist" and the two aren't remotely similar in philosophy or intention,
I've said, their philosophies and intentions are not related. But the actions and effects are the same.
The fact that you keep doing so tells me you have an agenda that simple wikipedia links won't fix.
You haven't yet addressed what I've said, so the one with the agenda that can't be fixed is obvious.
Learn to love Alaska
That's nice. Now maybe you can have a cookie, nom on it. While the adults go back to discussing things.
Om, nomnomnom...
YOU WIN!!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
that's not any ad hominem, it's just an observation
It's at best wildly off-topic and unsubstantiated.
However, you are most definitely attacking me instead of my arguments, which is the definition of ad-hom. The only mistake you haven't made (yet) is to tell me that I'm wrong because of these things you assume about my mental state, so it's not actually fallacious.
But why should I take anything you say seriously if you not only can't back them up, but you react to any criticism with "chill out"? In what context do you expect that to actually work?
THAT is loaded with fallacies, if you want to go that road.
Or it's just an observation.
I may be working from a faulty assumption, but my understanding of what it means to be a libertarian is that it's a nearly unattainable ideal of what constitutes a free market and a small government.
The rest - you are just a social retard and have trouble parsing sentences.
Then why are you the one modded troll? Why am I the one with people coming to my defense?
Please, tell me where I've actually misunderstood what you're trying to do.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
You've made an unsupported statement of opinion "the actions and effects are the same", which quite frankly isn't true.
If you really think it is, how about some kind of citation or example of what you're talking about. Anyone with a smidge of sense (or a browser with google access) knows Anarchism and Libertarianism aren't remotely similar...except so far as you obviously don't like either, so lumping them together seems like a moral victory for you.
Both want a smaller government, regardless of the social effects. There's nothing on the libertarian platform that isn't also on the anarchist platform.
If you think I'm wrong, name one thing the libertarians want that anarchists don't. My assertion is that if the libertarians got everything they wanted, that it matches what anarchists would call a good start, and that the government would actually collapse at that point, giving us some well-polished anarchy.
You apparently really like libertarianism and hate anarchism, but don't know what either wants. Otherwise you could prove me wrong rather than ranting that I haven't proven myself right.
Learn to love Alaska
USA was fine being libertarian in the 19 century, the prices were falling, the production was increasing, the wealth was growing, the USD was strengthening. The only thing that makes it 'unattainable' today is the ability of US to still get into more debt to finance its lavish lifestyle without producing anything in return.
As to being moded as 'troll', I don't pay attention to such inconsequential things, I am secure enough in my view of the world, if you need /. to 'come to your defense', that's your problem.
You can't handle the truth.
the prices were falling, the production was increasing, the wealth was growing,
And market failures were frequent.
I don't pay attention to such inconsequential things, I am secure enough in my view of the world,
You mean, you're secure in your own little world.
If you want to be taken seriously, you might want to start caring at least a little bit about the opinions of others. It's true that someone calling you a troll doesn't make you a troll, but when an entire community is essentially telling you "don't be a dick", you might want to consider that just maybe, it's not them, it's you.
If you don't want to be taken seriously, why post at all?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
And market failures were frequent.
- false. Not a single 'market failure'.
Market failure would imply that the price forming function of market stopped working for some reason, no such thing happened.
You are just as ignorant of basic terminology on the subject of economy, as you are ignorant on what economy actually is.
Boom and bust cycles are not market failures, they are inevitable opposite ends of the spectrum - growth of some market segments, overheating and the resulting bust.
However since the Fed was created the gov't has turned a normal boom/bust cycle, which is fundamentally sound and makes good economy (build segments up/cut excesses/restructure/build other segments out/...) into an ever inflating monetary bubble, which has first resulted in the recession of 1920, which was recovered from in 1 year because gov't cut its spending by 70% and let the markets restructure (released the credit to the private sector, stopped pumping money into a deflating market, which is fundamentally what is needed to rebuild savings and restart investments and create new jobs) and then the 1929 Great Depression - the result of Fed monetary and then the Keynesian policies of never letting the hot air out of the inflated bubble. And now the Fed and the gov't have destroyed so much of the US economy, that there is no production left in US due to the excessive regulations/taxes/gov't subsidies to monopolies/spending/inflation of the dollar and non-existing interest rates.
You mean, you're secure in your own little world.
- my world is very large, it includes companies in Europe, Asia and my old North American ones as well.
0--
As to the rest of your comment - grow a penis.
You can't handle the truth.
From Wikipedia:
Market failure is a concept within economic theory wherein the allocation of goods and services by a free market is not efficient. That is, there exists another conceivable outcome where market participants' overall gains from that outcome would outweigh their losses (even if some participants lose under the new arrangement).
Not a word in there about "price-forming function" -- however, it does mention some obvious causes, such as monopoly.
I apologize if I've misused terms. However, I do contend that in this sense, "market failure" is prevalent, unavoidable, but undesirable, and can be somewhat mitigated by regulation. This is true no matter what you want to call it.
Boom and bust cycles are not market failures,
Nor was I claiming for a second that they were.
As to the rest of your comment - grow a penis.
What an incredibly sexist thing to say. What makes you think I'm male to begin with?
Grow up.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Monopolies are created by gov't intervention, you'll find it nearly impossible to find a monopoly that didn't get its status due to gov't subsidies/other types of interventions and preferential treatment all based on corruption and which is not a natural monopoly - you own Mona Lisa original? Then you have a natural monopoly on it.
All gov't intervention (including anti-trust) dealt with companies, which either weren't monopolies at the time (Standard Oil, which had plenty of competitors by the time it was broken up and which gained its power due to an unhealthy amount of gov't help) or they were extremely efficient at what they did (Alcoa Aluminum, was producing the stuff so cheaply, others couldn't compete on price, so they got the gov't involved and broke a more efficient system to form less efficient ones) or they were gov't created monsters in the first place (AT&T)
As to market failures, are you calling what is observed today a success of any kind? Note that since the 1913 and the creation of the Fed, the first Fed mandate was price stability and it failed miserably at it. The fact is that in the 19 century the Free Market caused prices to go down and dollar to strengthen by a factor of 2, while in the 20th century after the Fed was created, the dollar fell by over a factor of 20.
Gov't is worse in market resource allocation than trade.
Price discovery is the main mechanism by which market economy works, the efficiencies of resource allocation are dealt with through market based price discovery, which is based on individual choices on what to do with their time, money, how to invest and what and when to spend on whatever.
Price discovery is the main point of market, gov't on the other hand breaks this mechanism and introduces inefficiencies through policy, which is based on the threat of violence and not on any principles based on sound economy.
What an incredibly sexist thing to say. What makes you think I'm male to begin with?
- exactly. Grow a penis if you want to argue here.
You can't handle the truth.
not a natural monopoly
I'm going to guess you'll say utilities aren't natural monopolies?
As to market failures, are you calling what is observed today a success of any kind?
Nope. Poor regulation is worse than no regulation, certainly.
- exactly. Grow a penis if you want to argue here.
Well, looks like you're not worth arguing with. My fault for giving it this much time.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!