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."

24 of 416 comments (clear)

  1. First Post? by Karna99 · · Score: 5, Funny

    So do they test it on him ?

  2. That sounds terrible... by Manip · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:That sounds terrible... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Funny

      What better way to get people excited about science by showing a man a lot of people respect excited about it?

      OK, that's a good argument. So, why is Obama on the show?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:That sounds terrible... by fishexe · · Score: 4, Funny

      What a lame duck of a Myth. That Myth wasn't even very exciting the first time they did it...

      Yeah, if they wanted to do Archimedes, it would have been way more exciting to test whether discovering fluid displacement is exciting enough to make someone run around town naked.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  3. Hope and Change? by MarkGriz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Busted!

    --
    Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
  4. Re:Real myth busted by Ant+P. · · Score: 5, Funny

    Q: How can you tell someone's a libertarian without asking?

    A: They'll tell you.

  5. Re:Well, I *was* looking forward to watching this. by natehoy · · Score: 5, Funny

    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."
  6. Re:Well, I *was* looking forward to watching this. by Applekid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  7. Wheres Kari? by vlm · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who cares, wheres Kari?

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  8. Transportation Security by ari_j · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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)?

  9. Re:Real myth busted by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 3, Funny

    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."?

  10. Re:Flamethrowers by rhyder128k · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sounds like we're getting screwed on this Archimedes thing.

    --
    Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
  11. Re:Burn, maybe not... by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

  12. How does an airplane see a signal mirror? by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:How does an airplane see a signal mirror? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      You obviously missed the second busting of this myth, where MIT built the rig. They had a mechanism for sighting the mirrors, and were able to get a very tight spot on the boat.

      They were able ignite the boat with the modern mirrors, but could not do it with polished copper.

      You want to know the most effective way of lighting a boat on fire? Shooting an arrow of flaming pitch at it. That one worked the best, and had the advantage of being much simpler and faster than the deathray with modern mirrors. The deathray with copper mirrors simply didn't work.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  13. Re:Well, I *was* looking forward to watching this. by LordKronos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

  14. Argh! Give up this stupid myth! by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!"

  15. Re:Burn, maybe not... by Stele · · Score: 3, Informative

    That used to annoy the hell out of me too, until I realized my remote had a fast forward button. Now, it's actually a feature. I can watch a whole show in 20 minutes. Great while having breakfast.

  16. Re:Well, I *was* looking forward to watching this. by snspdaarf · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!
  17. Re:Flamethrowers by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  18. Re:Well, I *was* looking forward to watching this. by operagost · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  19. Re:get off my iLawn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe challenging the claim that the current administration is going to help save money with Obamacare? (Busted?)

    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.

    Maybe challenging Obama's claim of a more transparent administration...maybe they really DO have legislation online for us to look at before they vote on it like he promised. (Busted?)

    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.

    >Maybe looking into the myth that Bush and others spent more than he has, yet somehow the national debt is already about doubled what it was for the Bush crew this early in Obama's presidency?

    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.

    Maybe look at the myth that Obama and Co. were going to stop the wars?

    Anyone who thought Obama was going to pull out all troops on day one was a tool ignorant of international politics.

    Maybe investigate the myth that Obama really *is* different than his predecessor(s) and not just a product of the media, and is just as beholden to the corporate entities that fund them as any of the other politicians?

    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.

  20. Re:get off my iLawn! by _xeno_ · · Score: 3, Informative

    Maybe challenging the claim that the current administration is going to help save money with Obamacare? (Busted?)

    It's already busted: look at the latest health stats out in Massachusetts. Our health care costs are through the roof, fewer people are able to see doctors than before, and more people than ever before are getting health care through the emergency room.

    On the other hand, adult obesity rates are apparently down, so that's something, although I suppose if you can't afford to eat due to insane health care costs... (Childhood obesity, on the other hand, is up.)

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  21. Re:Well, I *was* looking forward to watching this. by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!