MythBusters Bust House

ewhac writes "The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the MythBusters accidentally sent a cannon ball hurtling through Dublin this afternoon, punching through a home, bouncing across a six-lane road, and ultimately coming to a rest inside a now-demolished Toyota minivan. Amazingly, there were no injuries. The ball was fired from a home-made cannon at the Alameda County Sheriff's Department bomb range, and was intended to strike a water target. Instead the ball missed the water, punched through a cinder-block wall, and skipped off the hill behind. Prior to today, the MythBusters had been shooting episodes at the bomb range for over seven years without major incident. It is not clear whether Savage/Hyneman or Belleci/Imahara/Byron were conducting the experiment."

Comments

Not to be too pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

But this is posted on Wednesday morning, and the summary says "this afternoon". Has /. gone psychic?

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[knuthin]

Timezones. UJelly?

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[elrous0]

You do realize that stories are submitted well in advance of when they're actually posted, right? Sometimes DAYS in advance.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Niris]

It happened yesterday. It was on local news last night

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[LateArthurDent]

You do realize that stories are submitted well in advance of when they're actually posted, right? Sometimes DAYS in advance.

It's a television show. It was probably planned WEEKS in advance.

I will believe this the minute people involved in the show are arrested and prosecuted. Until then, the safe bet is publicity stunt.

People are not arrested and prosecuted for accidents. They were at a bomb range, not recklessly firing cannon balls in the middle of residential areas. They took appropriate precautions, but shit happens, and their insurance pays for the damage.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[FatdogHaiku]

Has /. gone psychic?

Not at all. Obviously the MythBusters have created a very mighty bowling ball cannon. Possibly they were trying to address the old "Can you build a bowling ball cannon that could cause localized time distortion?" myth.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[RobinEggs]

People are not arrested and prosecuted for accidents. They were at a bomb range, not recklessly firing cannon balls in the middle of residential areas. They took appropriate precautions, but shit happens, and their insurance pays for the damage.

If anything the Mythbusters are too careful. It's clear not just from their "don't try this at home" every half hour but from everything they do that they're expected to exemplify caution and thorough planning in all circumstances. And they have a big-ass staff to do it; not just the entire crew at M5 but a lot of people at their insurance company examine and clear every stunt.

No, any jury or civil judge would inevitably conclude that the Mythbusters were careful to a fault. They'd ask for a free T-shirt, tell the insurance company to pay up and the victims to quit bitching, and send Adam and Jamie on their merry way.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[gd2shoe]

Dude, they were at a police bomb range, under police supervision. Nobody's getting arrested (though some wrists are going to be slapped). The biggest question is whether or not they'll be permitted to keep using the range.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Kjella]

People are not arrested and prosecuted for accidents

Accidents, no. Criminal negligence, possibly. Which is not so unlikely when you deal with explosives or firearms. That said, they may have felt the destruction was evidence enough and saw no reason to waste a jail cell on him.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[DrgnDancer]

Except that they always, *always*, have officials of the local emergency services and experts on hand when they do stuff like this. Pretty much once your experiment has been cleared by fire/safety, the police, and a known explosives expert you can wash your hands of criminal liability. They're still financially responsible for the damage of course, but unless this is some sort complete departure from their normal modus operandi they did more than enough due diligence to avoid criminal prosecution for gross negligence.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[bigstrat2003]

No, obviously they didn't.

That isn't "obvious" at all, unless you have some insider information. Sometimes, even if you take all precautions that seem necessary, shit happens. The fact that something went wrong is not in itself evidence of carelessness.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Gordonjcp]

People are not arrested and prosecuted for accidents

They're talking about America, Land of the "Free", where you can be arrested and prosecuted *for crossing the road in the wrong place*!

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

"Appropriate precautions" doesn't mean "guarantee nothing goes wrong".

There will be investigations to make sure appropriate precautions WERE taken. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. Certainly having video of "oh-my-god-that-was-amazing" post-oops reactions of the guests will probably prove to be problematic considering the scope of actual damage, but that doesn't by itself mean that the event wasn't being taken seriously.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[mosb1000]

That's nothing. You can be arrested for resisting arrest.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[teslafreak]

Can, but almost never are. Drive down any busy road in any city as proof.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[KingSkippus]

People are not arrested and prosecuted for accidents.

Want to bet?

Yes, I will bet you a large sum of money that no one will be arrested and prosecuted for this accident. How do you want to handle the wager? Some sort of escrow? How long do we have to go before you'll admit that those ne'er do well Mythbusters got away with it scott free? Because I don't want five years from now you still saying, "It's still possible that they could be arrested!"

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[mark_reh]

A large percentage of what they do on the show is strictly for entertainment value. Many of the so-called myths they test, and the methods they devise to test them, are completely predictable by anyone with any common sense, yet they perform the "tests" anyway because they involve entertaining car wrecks, explosions, fire balls, or Adam ending up in pain and/or puking.

I don't know if this particular incident occurred while testing something unpredictable or whether simply doing something entertaining, but either way, the lawyers have been hired and the suits will fly. The police, the production company, Adam, Jamie, and every other member of the cast who was present, the state of Ca., and the TV channel that sponsors/airs their show will all be sued for actual damages + compensation for PTSD + punitive damages. There will even be a suit over who gets possession of the cannon ball- the myth-busters, the PD bomb squad, the city, the state, the homeowner, or the van owner. If either the homeowner or the van owner win it will promptly be placed on ebay- hopefully they'll be smart enough to get Adam, Jamie, and the rest of the gang to autograph it first...

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Ihmhi]

I don't remember which battle it was (still nursing my morning coffee), but I recall the British navy shelling an American fort in a similar situation. There was a large hill in the way and they couldn't fire directly on the fort, so they tried "skipping" cannonballs off of a hill. It worked - the cannonballs bounced off of the hill and went up and over.

I remember at least the "cannon = hill = sky high flying cannonball" part and I learned this in high school (at the latest). It kinda surprises me that no one on the entire crew (the performers or the technical folks) made this logical leap and thought "Hey, that hill there... you don't think it could...?"

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[spire3661]

The person was responding to the absolute statement that "people dont get arrested for accidents" when in fact they can and do all the time.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[coyote_oww]

p>I remember at least the "cannon = hill = sky high flying cannonball" part and I learned this in high school (at the latest). It kinda surprises me that no one on the entire crew (the performers or the technical folks) made this logical leap and thought "Hey, that hill there... you don't think it could...?"

New myth to test! and the finale - how high can you bounce a cannonball?

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[DigiTechGuy]

This was in the United States. You have very few rights here, especially in states like California. The vast majority of the obscenely high prison population is in jail for victimless crimes, they hurt nobody and were not arrested for violent acts or violation of property rights. I recall that statistic was nearly 90% of the prison population is incarcerated for a victimless crime.

On accidents, people are arrested and/or prosecuted for accidents all the time. Intent does not matter, only the state collection revenue (theft) or putting people in prison to appear "tough on crime" (of the victimless variety). Welcome to Amerika, where you have fewer rights every day. Regardless, none of that will happen to the Mythbusters crew because they are rich celebrities and as such are givern preferential treatment to be above the oppressive and unjust law that applies to the rest of us. the only legitimate cases here are those of the individuals harmed, the owners of the house, car, and anything or anyone else who was harmed. The State has no right to prosecute or file suit against people as the State cannot be a victim, and without a victim there is no crime or lawsuit.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[werepants]

A large percentage of what they do on the show is strictly for entertainment value. Many of the so-called myths they test, and the methods they devise to test them, are completely predictable by anyone with any common sense, yet they perform the "tests" anyway because they involve entertaining car wrecks, explosions, fire balls, or Adam ending up in pain and/or puking.

It's a TV show, so 100% of what they do is strictly for entertainment value. It just so happens that they've managed to capture parts of the scientific method in ways that end up being entertaining. The fact that many of their experiments are predictable isn't a mark against them, either - science is about formally testing and verifying any kind of knowledge, and sometimes, even when we think the answer is obvious, it turns out differently than we expect and we learn something from it.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Dublin?

Can they demolish the rest of the place, and then move on to Pleasanton?

I think they'd do good, were they to level everything along the 680 corridor - up to Altamont.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

It happened yesterday. It was on local news last night

Pffffft, yeah, buddy, and Slashdot somehow managed to magically post a fresh, relevant article about it by the next morning! Sure thing, whatever you say!

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Cosgrach]

No, the biggest question is that: 'Will they air the accident sequence and the resulting damage'? I REALLY think that they should, it is a good lesson as to why you do not try this stuff at home.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[JiveDonut]

I only wager it BitCoin

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[newbie_fantod]

Cannonade is a dying art.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[socrplayr813]

As teslafreak said, people are rarely ticketed/arrested for it. In my view, the law is on the books to protect drivers from legal trouble from idiot pedestrians and to attempt to protect the pedestrians from themselves. That way, when I hit you with my car because you want to cross the street NOW, you can't mindlessly sue me because you're too stupid to not jump in front of a moving car. If you were in the crosswalk, you may have a more valid case, but that's a different matter.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[kelemvor4]

I only wager it BitCoin

I only do it with monopoly money. Perhaps we can come to some sort of agreement.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[bev_tech_rob]

Crud...wish I hadn't already used up my mod points....mod parent up...

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Ossifer]

I've always thought it should not be possible to convict someone of "resisting arrest" unless they are also convicted of another crime, for which they resisted being arrested...

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Mister Whirly]

Yep, good thing they have an insurance policy that will cover those costs. I believe lawsuits generally occur when one side refuses to pay for damages. I seriously doubt that Mythbusters will not pay for all damages and probably additional compensation for any "mental anguish" suffered by the victims. Regardless, I think this is going to be great publicity for the show.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[sexconker]

No, obviously they didn't.

That isn't "obvious" at all, unless you have some insider information. Sometimes, even if you take all precautions that seem necessary, shit happens. The fact that something went wrong is not in itself evidence of carelessness.

Here's some "inside information". The Mythbusters is all about blowing shit up now. It has been for at least 3 years.
They exhibit a fundamental lack of understanding of basic physics in about 90% of the "myths" they test. And about 60% of the time I'd argue that they know they're doing something stupid and pointless, yet they pursue the obviously flawed course of action for ratings.

Even when they do something right, the last segment is always "OK, so that's busted/plausible/confirmed, but what if we use 10 times the explosives?".

The show has devolved into complete asshattery. Smashlab, in it's brief run, was far better because there were actual engineers involved doing actual thinking. But they weren't clowns so people didn't watch.

Anyone who watches Mythbusters and actually understood their high school physics class knows that the show puts zany antics first, safety second, and science fourth. Third is shitty promos for Obama and Seth Rogen's shitty movies.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

People are not arrested and prosecuted for accidents.

That's the most naive statement I've read all day. Probably the most naive of my entire year.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[modecx]

What people get arrested for is negligence. Accidents, not so much.

If you're driving drunk and you get in a wreck, you were not involved in an accident because you were not exercising a standard of care that the law requires; namely, not driving whilst intoxicated. If you're texting and run over a class full of kindergartners crossing the street to the park, same thing. If you're excessively speeding and wreck, ditto. None of these are accidents, because accidents are by definition unforeseen, and most often, unpreventable.

Hitting a deer might be an accident. Colliding with a motorcycle rider who was stupidly riding in your blind spot might be an accident. A truck driver having a heart attack, dying at the wheel and dumping the toxic contents of his truck into a pristine mountain river is an accident.

Accidents usually involve some amount of civil liability, even if people are maimed or killed. Negligence involves criminal liability. Two different things. Y'all need to stop using 'accident' incorrectly. I once again propose a new word: neglident.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[rilian4]

Hell no! The biggest question is whether this experiment makes it to air on an episode. I wanna see the looks on their faces when that cannon ball misses everything and goes flying off into the sunset.

Then and only then do I want to know if they will be allowed to keep using the range.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Mista2]

Like when they launched a car over the back of their testing lot after crashing through a fruitstand.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Garybaldy]

Thing is you are required by law to stop if you can. So while a pedestrian might be in the wrong for jaywalking. A driver can be held accountable for not yielding if it was possible to do so.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

And what precisely do you have against the Tri-Valley (Dublin / Pleasanton / Livermore)? It's overall a nice place to live. The biggest problem for me is that it's too far from tech jobs in Silicon Valley.

But anyway, if you must wish for them to "level everything along the 680 corridor - up to Altamont", at least get the freeway designator right. It's I-580. Dumbass. --jwc

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[dkleinsc]

science is about formally testing and verifying any kind of knowledge, and sometimes, even when we think the answer is obvious, it turns out differently than we expect and we learn something from it.

For instance, one of my classic physics experiments in high school: We dropped two differently weighted object, using a ticker-tape mechanism to time the fall. Contrary to all expectations, the heavier object fell faster. Consistently. After basking in our moment of triumph for demolishing all understanding of gravity since Galileo, we were told to explain the difference as related to the friction of the ticker-tape.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[bluemonq]

Nobody expected a cannonball to skip off a hill, fly 1/3 of a mile, then start punching through doors, walls, and a car before finally coming to a stop.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[dkleinsc]

They probably thought that the wall that the cannonball just busted right through would at least slow it down enough that the hill would help stop the cannon shots a la Duke of Wellington's reverse-slope defense.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Apparently limiting the charge in the canon was NOT one of the safety precautions taken. By my reading of the article- this canonball flew for well over 1000 feet and did a great deal of damage along the way. Can't wait to see the episode itself.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[dominious]

You do realize that stories are submitted well in advance of when they're actually posted, right? Sometimes DAYS in advance.

You do realize that he doesn't realize that? And yes I do realize that you don't realize that he doesn't realize that. Why people ask such questions anyway :P

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Resulting damage and initial part, maybe- too valuable not to. But I really think they didn't have cameras on the back side of the hill.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Alomex]

Contrary to all expectations, the heavier object fell faster.

This is correct. It can take quite a few iterations before one has a fool proof release mechanism that does not favor the heavier object.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

To be exact- miss the target, punch through a cinder block wall, THEN skip off the hill, fly 1/3rd of a mile, through a door, skip UP the stairs, through an adobe and plaster wall, hit the neighbor's roof, before rolling off the roof onto a minivan windshield, bounced of the dashboard into the back seats floorboards.

That's *almost* as unbelievable of a projectile path than the amazing single bullet that went through Kennedy and hit Governor Connally.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Alomex]

The TV news report says that the cannonball completely missed the water barrels and cinderblock wall that were supposed to stop its journey.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Dunbal]

AFAIK they haven't made any changes to KE = 1/2 mv^2 recently. Where exactly are you aiming that thing, how much does it weigh, and how much powder are you putting behind it? 100% preventable. It wasn't "god" that made the ball go through the wall.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Dunbal]

Er no. From TFA they've already had a previous incident with stray rounds from the range. Either the range is in the wrong place, or the town is in the wrong place. "Shit happens" is not good enough for sentient human beings. But alas I realize you are a "mythbusters" fan.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[oldmac31310]

or the Spanish Inquisition...

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[bigstrat2003]

Not particularly. I am inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt, however, and I do believe that "shit happens" is a reasonable defense. I also don't particularly appreciate the assumption that I have a bias simply because you disagree with my opinion.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, in some cases you can be arrested for doing nothing at all.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Firewheels]

Considering all the tweets and pictures emitted while on-set have been deleted, I would be surprised if the episode ever made the light of day.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[SGDarkKnight]

resisting arrest is what you are charged with when being arrested for committing another crime of which you were arrested for in the first place. being convicted of resisting arrest is something that happens after the initial arrest (the one that you resisted)

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[osu-neko]

Many of the so-called myths they test, and the methods they devise to test them, are completely predictable by anyone with any common sense...

No matter how predictable something seems, you do not know it until it's been tested. The history of science has a long list of people who proved the so-called obvious to be false when actually tested. The majority of the time, of course, what seems obvious proves to be correct, but the smug person who claims to have known that without having to test it in fact knows nothing at all...

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[DrgnDancer]

I didn't say they never make mistakes, just that they do due diligence. Given the sheer number of dangerous and never before attempted things they've tried on that show over the course of its run, their safety record isn't half bad. In a ten year career with the National Guard I've probably witnessed more incidents during one weekend a month training operations than they've had in their whole run, and everything we did was according to an establish procedure we were well versed in. They do entirely different, often dangerous, things every week.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[flaming error]

> Where exactly are you aiming that thing
FTA, at a target of huge water containers placed in front of a brick wall which was in front of an earthen hill.

> how much does it weigh,
FTA, about the same as a six inch [iron?] cantaloupe.

> how much powder are you putting behind it?
African, or European?

> It wasn't "god" that made the ball go through the wall.
How do you know? Don't let Him off so easy.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[mburns]

The firing of a cannon is not accidental. An engineer would be liable, I think off hand, if she had been asked to evaluate the failure modes and had not spotted this eventuality. Causality rules in this domain of physics. And a cannon ball in flight carries an indivisible and large amount of kinetic energy, the producers should have rated the precautions in proportion.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

People get arrested for and pay restitution for NEGLIGENCE. Negligence may or may not have played a major role in the accident.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

My happy would be increase greatly to function the Escrow for your transaction. Please to send the money Western Union.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

The police's favorite Catch-22!

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[shadowfaxcrx]

You seem awfully angry.

The show has evolved into 5 people getting paid to blow crap up. If someone walked up to you and offered you a mind-boggling amount of money, plus side income from speaking engagement fees, etc, to set fire to things, blow stuff up, and to build and play with large and dangerous equipment, are you saying you wouldn't jump at the chance?

For 90% of the myths that they test to demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic physics, at least 90% of the myths they test would have to require such an understanding. I would submit that many of the myths they test require no such understanding, and so your statistics are called into question.

I have yet to see promos for Obama (care to link to that?), and of course they put zany antics high up on the list. It's a TV show. People skip physics class to watch TV because most people find TV more entertaining than physics class. If TV just broadcasts a physics class, people are going to change the channel. After all, the show is called Mythbusters, not Science Hour. Without ratings, the show goes away and gets replaced with another iteration of Ice Road Truckers. Which would you rather have on the air? Even Ed Murrow had to do stupid entertainment celebwatch pieces in between his good journalistic pieces in order to keep his show on the air.

As for the comment you replied to, yes shit sometimes does happen despite all best efforts to prevent shit from happening. As others have noted, this scene was undoubtedly signed off on by the fire department, the cops, the insurance underwriters, and probably ordnance/explosive experts. It isn't as though these guys wandered out and began blindly firing canons toward houses without thinking the situation through, which is what you're implying in your eagerness to crap all over the show.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[anyGould]

Also - air friction.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[anyGould]

Resulting damage and initial part, maybe- too valuable not to. But I really think they didn't have cameras on the back side of the hill.

And they have shown that sort of footage in the past - the "instant convertable" myth (where the car doesn't stop as expected after going under the semi, launches off a berm and ends up in a ditch on the other side of the fence), they show the launch (several times - because that was cool), and more importantly, focus on the team's reactions (which were obviously unscripted "oh ****" type responses), and then show them finding the car and having "oh, this could have sucked a whole lot" type conversations. (I think one of the "don't try this at home" bits are actually in front of the car.)

I imagine they'll still use the bomb range in future - they'll just point the cannon *away* from the residential housing...

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[LateArthurDent]

Er no. From TFA they've already had a previous incident with stray rounds from the range. Either the range is in the wrong place, or the town is in the wrong place. "Shit happens" is not good enough for sentient human beings. But alas I realize you are a "mythbusters" fan.

If you RTFA more carefully, you'd realize the stray bullet incident was from a nearby army base. Not the mythbusters, and not from this range.

Even if it had been from the same range, it makes no sense to expect that whatever procedures they corrected to prevent a second stray bullet would have been effective against a cannonball, so I don't see what your point is.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Marxist Hacker 42]

They could have pointed it towards Byron- 20 miles away.....no houses in between.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Electricity Likes Me]

Except - and I'd be willing to bet there's a decent chance this happened - if you aim a cannonball wrong, it's possible to initially skip it off the ground before the target, and then miss entirely as the ball goes sailing over from the deflection. What looks like a shot level with the ground ends up going over a much higher target because you've deflected it.

Could be any number of reasons - equipment failure or whatever. I'd wager it's much more problematic that the bomb range backstop couldn't stop the projectile and was aimed such that a stray headed into a populated area.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[meerling]

Actually it says it "...tore through a cinder-block wall...", and that my friend is NOT a miss, though they did miss the containers of water.

Oh well, one in a milliion chance things happen everyday, that's why you buy insurance.

I actually broke a 1 inch steel rod on a lidless empty glass jar. Sometimes bizarre unlikely things do happen, and all you can do is clean up the mess afterwards. (And remember it for those weird anecdote stories, like this one.)

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[ckaminski]

And if they couldn't, people would be a lot more circumspect when they were out walking.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[tmarsh86]

You completely missed his point. He was talking about the article here on /., not the actual Mythbusters accident itself.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Alomex]

Actually it says it "...tore through a cinder-block wall..."

That is what the article from the SF says. I'm talking about the TV news report.

Here is what the TV news report says:

"This cannonball was supposed to go through several barrels of water and through a cinder block, and then ultimately into the side of the hill," said J.D. Nelson of the Alameda County Sheriff's Department.

Instead the cannonball flew over the foothills surrounding Camp Parks Military Firing Reservation, before spiraling back toward Dublin like a cruise missile.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the 580 corridor, carpetbagger!

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

"Many of the so-called myths they test, and the methods they devise to test them, are completely predictable by anyone with any common sense"

Indeed. They "had to" test whether high or low vehicle speeds produce a smoother ride on washboard roads. Truly idiotic...

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[tp1024]

The problem is that there are very defined standard precautions in driving a car, but for firing a cannon those are at least a lot less well defined. As we're talking about the USA, it really only depends on whether or not somebody is hell-bent on suing them or not. And the likely answer is the former rather than the latter.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

"Red ball in the corner pocket" - "FIRE" - "aaaaannnnndddd IT'S IN THE HOLE!"

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[MDMurphy]

To be exact- miss the target, punch through a cinder block wall, THEN skip off the hill, fly 1/3rd of a mile, through a door, skip UP the stairs, through an adobe and plaster wall, hit the neighbor's roof, before rolling off the roof onto a minivan windshield, bounced of the dashboard into the back seats floorboards.

Not too exact. House is not likely made of adobe, California has advanced in it's building construction just a little since the Spanish owned the place. The house doesn't show up in satellite photos from 2000, so it would be of modern construction.

The ball appears to have crashed through a side window of the minivan, not the windshield based on the picture here:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/render_gallery.jsp?articleId=19483521&siteId=571&startImage=4

The problem is that news stories are very often wrong. Then someone quotes it wrong. Then someone makes wrong comments on a website wrong and they get quoted wrong.

I've yet to see a significant news story where I had some direct knowledge get it all right. It's happened enough that I NEVER believe a story I read is all correct, and I really wouldn't ever expect someone's recounting of a story they read to be all correct.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[sexconker]

No, I would not jump at the chance to be an idiot on TV, or even pretend to be one.

And yes, they had an Obama episode. They did the "burn ships with mirrors" myth for a third time because it was Obama's favorite.
And they even got to meet him and have badly edited footage of their discussions afterward which clearly showed they didn't meet up a second time.
You clearly haven't been paying attention if you didn't hear about that one. Or the Seth Rogen episode for the Green Hornet.

And all physical experiments demand a understanding of basic physics. They often test myths that are clearly true or false to anyone who understands newton's laws. They either do it and are actually ignorant, or do it and feign ignorance for the show. Either way it's insulting, and it is by no means encouraging people to be interested in science.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[cartman94501]

An accident is a mishap which the parties involve did not intend to happen. I prefer the term "collision" because it's factual and leaves motivation and intent out of it. People are routinely arrested for things which they did not intend to do, and are often convicted of them, too.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[modecx]

I agree, however for cannons the precautions are like any gun, and they're a lot simpler than the driver's rule book. 1) treat all guns like they're loaded, 2) never let the muzzle cover something you aren't willing to obliterate, 3) stay off the trigger until it's time to fire, 4) be sure of your target and of what is beyond it.

Everyone involved surely imagined they had a good enough backstop or they wouldn't have proceeded, but we don't know the totality of circumstances involved. It might be that they anticipated a ricochet possibility and constructed a backstop (or used an existing one) to accommodate that possibility, but the projectile still managed to escape.

Their only failing might be the "and of what is beyond it" part of rule 4, and that's why it's usually advisable to test high-energy devices completely out of any optimistic range.

I bet there will be an out of court settlement if it ever goes that far, though.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[PopeRatzo]

People are not arrested and prosecuted for accidents.

Sure they are. All the time. "Reckless endangerment" for example. "Destruction of Property".

If I go in my backyard and take "appropriate precautions" and then almost kill a family with a homemade cannon, I'm going to be arrested.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[PopeRatzo]

I didn't say they never make mistakes, just that they do due diligence.

"Due diligence" is an interesting concept when you're talking about a TV show that specializes in doing dangerous stuff and then there's damage to property (not their own).

If they had done "due diligence" then they'd have shot off their cannon somewhere in the Mojave instead of in a populated area of the UK. It's one thing when the military does testing in a bomb range and another when it's just a stupid reality TV show.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[shadowfaxcrx]

Saying their 3rd overall priority for the entire series is a tie between Rogen and "shitty promos of Obama" based on the fact that they had *one* segment of *one* episode about Obama pretty much proves that you're irrationally attacking them because you, personally, for whatever reason, hate them.

As for them testing myths that are clearly true or false to anyone who understands Newton's laws. . What's your point? The show puts myths to the test. It wouldn't last very long if every segment was Jamie saying "Well this would be fucking obvious to you viewers if you weren't science retards."

A lot of myths are obviously bullshit to people who are well-versed in whatever subject the myth is about. The show is aiming at people who are not well-versed in those subjects, but who are interested in learning something about them (and who like something to blow up from time to time, which really is most of us ;) ). It's pretty obvious to me that if the powerful radar in the nose of an airplane, not to mention the air-to-ground phones installed in the plane, and the radios, and all the other emitting electronic devices don't screw up the instruments in the cockpit, then my cell phone certainly won't. But to people who don't have experience with radio communications, or who don't even know that airplanes have all those things installed in them, it might not be quite so clear. Doing an episode about that myth, therefore, makes sense - a lot more sense than opening and closing the segment with "Do cell phones interfere with airplanes? No. Duh."

Rather than insulting viewers by telling them that if they actually knew something they'd know the myth is BS, this show presents the information in a more entertaining and accessible way. I feel fairly safe in guessing that you'd agree with me that science education in the US is largely crap, which is why so many people fall for bullshit like life force bracelets and other stupid products. As we therefore have a large population of people who might be perfectly fine in the intelligence department, but nonetheless ignorant about aspects of science, a show that gets people interested even in a peripheral way about science or, at the very least, the scientific principle that you don't just randomly believe any crap you hear about, but test it out to see if it's plausible, is in my book a pretty good idea.

Plus, being pissed off at the 2 cohosts for not being physicists when they never claimed to be physicists, and specifically state in the intro to the show that they're movie prop makers, is kind of silly. They're two reasonably intelligent people who are very good at making custom devices and are therefore ideally suited for an "average joe wants to know about this myth" show.

I certainly don't make the claim that the Mythbuster crew is composed of scientists or that the show is about rehashing science that everyone should, according to you, already know. But Mythbusters doesn't make that claim either.

I suspect your version of the show would be very much more scientifically rigorous and educational, and thoroughly grounded in whatever discipline the myth-of-the-day required.

I also suspect that no one would watch it.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[modecx]

Yes, yes, collision is the word that insurance adjusters like to use in the context of car wrecks...more broadly descriptive and all of the things you mentioned. However, the vapid personalities we call newscasters often say "drunk driving accident", or "accidentally drove through a storefront" etc. While you may prefer 'collision', you have to admit that 'accident' is very often misapplied.

Still, I can't think of any one person who has been arrested because of an event which truly happened accidentally, in the, random-acts-of-pain connotation of the word. If they're arrested, it's usually because they've done something negligently, and yes, you can also do something negligently or recklessly even if there was no intent behind the act.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[mark_reh]

Nonsense. What you're suggesting means that we can never know about anything from past experience, similar experience, or even logical thought processes. You can know some things without having to keep retesting them. For example, if you put a loaded gun to your head and pull the trigger anyone who knows what a gun is/does knows that you will be killed. There is no need to test this concept. It is 100% knowable without testing as are many others.

Many of the things the myth busters test can be 100% accurately predicted, especially when they test some of the ridiculous, impossible internet myths sent in by viewers.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[mark_reh]

Those guys have "deep pockets" and this event happened in California. The lawyers are circling like hungry sharks even as I type this.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[ehintz]

Furthermore, there was another episode some time back, where they were launching a bowling ball from some sort of contraption, and it did precisely that. They wandered around in the brush on the the other side for awhile until they found it. Which makes nobody thinking of this possibility even more surprising.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Pseudonym Authority]

Not people with money and not people on TV. These are both.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

580, 680, 880.... All roads to hell. I won't cross a bridge and enter the USA, anyways.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[WorBlux]

Negligence rarely is a criminal thing, unless it rises to gross negligence. Not only must someone violate some duty of care, but the manner that they do so must be entirely unreasonable, or with a reckless disregard of life or property. What separates mere accident from negligence is weather there is a duty of care present. Negligence is primarily a tort, and is only a crime when it is to a degree where willfulness can be inferred.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[dookiesan]

Just a nitpick. This happened in Dublin, California -- not Dublin, Ireland.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[drsquare]

Careful? They aimed a cannon at a residential area, and fired it. On purpose. The problem is, America is a very corrupt country, and as they had police cooperation they'll probably get away with it.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[neyla]

indeed. And that's the reason any kid will think lighter objects fall faster. Because in everyday experience, i.e. in AIR they actually do.

Lead weights -do- outrace feathers by a significant margin, in air at standard atmospheric pressure.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[mosb1000]

No, you can actually be charged with resisting arrest and nothing else. The police actually seem to think it is their God given right to arrest anybody at any time for any reason, and if you resist that is grounds enough to brand you a criminal for life. You'd think they'd owe you an apology for wrongly trying to arrest you in the first place, but nope, you're going to jail.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

... It can take quite a few iterations before one has a fool proof release mechanism that does not favor the heavier object.

What?

If the experiment is not done in a vacuum, a larger object will fall faster than a small one of the same shape and density, due to atmospheric drag. Given two objects of the same size and volume, the heavier will fall faster for the same reason.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

objects of the same size and volume

I meant to say "objects of the same shape and volume"

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[tehcyder]

I don't remember which battle it was (still nursing my morning coffee), but I recall the British navy shelling an American fort in a similar situation. There was a large hill in the way and they couldn't fire directly on the fort, so they tried "skipping" cannonballs off of a hill. It worked - the cannonballs bounced off of the hill and went up and over.

I remember at least the "cannon = hill = sky high flying cannonball" part and I learned this in high school (at the latest). It kinda surprises me that no one on the entire crew (the performers or the technical folks) made this logical leap and thought "Hey, that hill there... you don't think it could...?"

I wonder if that's what inspired Barnes Wallis's bouncing bomb for the Dambusters raids?

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[tehcyder]

If they had done "due diligence" then they'd have shot off their cannon somewhere in the Mojave instead of in a populated area of the UK.

(1) this isn't Dublin, Eire, but Dublin, California.

(2) Dublin, Eire has not been part of the UK since 1922.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Dr. Hok]

What people get arrested for is negligence. Accidents, not so much.

[...]

Colliding with a motorcycle rider who was stupidly riding in your blind spot might be an accident.

As a motorcycle rider I can't leave this unanswered. If you collide with a motorcycle rider who happens to be in your blind spot it is not an accident but negligence on your side because you failed to look over your shoulder.

And, I admit, stupidity on the biker's part, because the first thing they tell you in motorcycle driving lessons is that cars are your enemies and they don't take prisoners.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[tehcyder]

Colliding with a motorcycle rider who was stupidly riding in your blind spot might be an accident.

As a motorcyclist, can I just say that it is up to you as a driver to make allowances for your blind spot, not for me to guess where it might be. If you make a manoeuvre into an area where you can't see, that is not an accident, it's dangerous driving.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[tehcyder]

I only wager it BitCoin

I only do it with monopoly money. Perhaps we can come to some sort of agreement.

I wouldn't risk your valuable and useful monopoly money against a meaningless toy currency like BitCoin.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Phoghat]

You do realize that stories are submitted well in advance of when they're actually posted, right? Sometimes DAYS in advance.

Read MY Sig !

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[tehcyder]

I've always thought it should not be possible to convict someone of "resisting arrest" unless they are also convicted of another crime, for which they resisted being arrested...

The two are unconnected. If you go to trial and call the judge a fucking fascistic paedophiliac twatburgling cunt you will be punished for contempt of court even if you're found not guilty of the crime you're in court for.

If you have a legal system, those running it need a certain amount of protection, it's part of the deal we make to be civilised. The alternative beloved of slashdot libertarians (a sort of Wild West vigilante/lynch mob system where whoever shoots first wins) is not one that I would welcome.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[PopeRatzo]

(1) this isn't Dublin, Eire, but Dublin, California.

(2) Dublin, Eire has not been part of the UK since 1922.

Begs forgiveness.

I don't know about these things. I watched Mythbusters once and hated it. They could be in Dublin, Pakistan for all I know.

Dublin, Eire has not been part of the UK since 1922.

Again, what do I know? All you white people look alike to me.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[PopeRatzo]

This happened in Dublin, California -- not Dublin, Ireland.

Isn't Ireland in California any more?

I had not idea they moved. But then, I haven't left my house since 1996.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Bitsy Boffin]

miss the target, punch through a cinder block wall, THEN skip off the hill, fly 1/3rd of a mile, through a door, skip UP the stairs, through an adobe and plaster wall, hit the neighbor's roof, before rolling off the roof onto a minivan windshield, bounced of the dashboard into the back seats floorboards.

... nothing but net.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[LateArthurDent]

Sure they are. All the time. "Reckless endangerment

At which point you are arrested for "reckless endangerment", not for the accident. Reckless being defined as not taking the appropriate precautions.

If I go in my backyard and take "appropriate precautions" and then almost kill a family with a homemade cannon, I'm going to be arrested.

If you're firing a homemade cannon in your backyard, your precautions aren't appropriate by definition. "Appropriate" precautions involve going to the right place to do these things, such as a bomb range.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[spire3661]

As a car driver i would say, dont be in my blind spot, period. You may be the one that is right, but ill be the one that lives. How is it that we force people who drive in steel cages and engineered crumple zones to wear seatbelts but we allow people to operate motorcycles?

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[modecx]

I'm a motorcycle rider as well; what I meant to convey, and failed at doing so, is the idea of the retarded rider which hangs out in a car/trucks/van's blind spot for no good reason. There are circumstances, especially with larger vehicles, where the driver can technically do everything right, including checking blind spots, properly indicating, and still not see a rider. That, in my mind would be an accident, or perhaps negligence on part of the rider.

Face it, as much as some of us riders try to do everything right, I've also seen some mighty stupid things. I've personally seen several close calls where a rider changes lanes right into a driver's blind spot--after I saw that driver indicate--and in the times I've seen this, I'm pretty sure I also saw the driver's head turn to check the blind spot. So, there's one example, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[modecx]

I'm a rider as well, and replied to the first guy to bring this up... I don't want to be redundant, so look up the thread a bit.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

"They took appropriate precautions,"
No, they did not -- the cannon ball hit a house and a car endangering lives.
An appropriate, reasonable precaution would be to take it to a deserted area for 100's of miles or not do the show. A good layer will have a field day with this one. Emotional issues for the homeowners. Will not be able to live in house and will need new, larger house. Neighbors also will have emotional scars that will need to be cured with very large sums of money. All paid for by Mythbusters.
Damn, I wish I was an attorney. Money maker here.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

ohhh -- that is very incorrect. This issue could have been avoided and risks could have easily been avoided.
This is payday for good attorney. you got some deep pockets to go after here.
Completely irresponsible on the sheriffs dept and myth crew.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

"They took appropriate precautions,"
No, they did not -- the cannon ball hit a house and a car endangering lives.

What the hell is wrong with you people? Appropriate precautions does not mean that nothing will ever happen. It means you've taken reasonable steps according to a reasonable estimation of risk. Multiple experts were consulted and determined the risk was acceptable. That means the precautions were reasonable even if 50+ people had died.

If you're skydiving, and end up landing on somebody's roof, you're not liable for criminal charges. You need to pay for damage, and that's it.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Lord of Hyphens]

"Well this would be fucking obvious to you viewers if you weren't science retards."

Well that's just great. Now I have that rolling around in my head in Jamie's voice.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[sexconker]

Protip, dipshit: I dislike the show because it's stupid, and promotes stupidity. Not because the hosts aren't physicists.
I also dislike the idiots who praise the show for getting people interested in science because the show doesn't get people interested in science. Even if it did, it would be doing more harm than good as the show exhibit a terrible lack of scientific rigor.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[shadowfaxcrx]

And with the descent into personal insults, you out yourself as a troll, which means I can stop arguing with you now. You have a special day now. :)

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

The cannonball probably overshot the target, rather than undershot (bowling ball fired from a K-size cylinder modded into a cannon, powered by match heads).

Captcha: blunders
Mwahaha.

Re:Not to be too pedantic

[sexconker]

You can stop arguing with me whenever you want. Having your feelings hurt is probably as good a point as any to stop.
It's not like you were "winning" the "argument" anyway - you just flailed on about how you don't see/care how insipid the show and the hosts's antics are.

Busted!

[Anonymous Coward]

Professionals my ass. I can do more damage than that by trying that at home, amateurs.

Re:Busted!

[sharkey]

Maybe, but I'd still rather watch Kari do it.

Re:Busted!

[Anonymous Coward]

especially since her boobs got bigger after popping out that sprog

I thought

[knuthin]

Being a mythbuster gets them "shoot-a-cannon-through-the-wall" privileges. :/

Re:I thought

[ByOhTek]

Probably not. They'll get fired, arrested, mysteriously disappear from prison, and coincidentally, the DoD will have a new "Mythical" or "Buster" kinetic/ballistic weapons research team!

Re:I thought

[sheehaje]

Alls I know is that was one magic loogie..

Re:I thought

[BagOCrap]

Well, they certainly had a blast!

Re:I thought

[mcgrew]

The ball was fired from a home-made cannon at ... a water target

The nerds who couldn't shoot straight.

The ball was fired from a home-made cannon at the Alameda County Sheriff's Department...

All of a sudden a Bob Marley song is running through my head...

Re:I thought

[Anonymous Coward]

could this be a commercial for Mythbusters new armor they are developing?
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/04/06/181234/mythbuster-developing-light-weight-vehicle-armor

Re:I thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the DOD is working on a prototype for this new technology referred to as a cannon that will revolutionize war and hence needs to hire pop-science tv stars?

Re:I thought

[siride]

Nobody expects cannons any more. The sheer ridiculousness of bringing cannons to a modern battlefield might be enough to confuse the enemy and allow America to be victorious.

Re:I thought

[jeff4747]

Nobody expects cannons any more.

I think they do

Re:I thought

[Strider-]

I certainly didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

Re:I thought

[hamsolo474]

No one ever expects the SPANISH INQUISITION!

Re:I thought

[Anonymous Coward]

I would wager that home-made cannon != accurate cannon

Re:I thought

[Anonymous Coward]

All of a sudden a Bob Marley song is running through my head...

That's pretty good. Like "I asked the Sheriff, and he said 'Y'all shoot the de-pyoo-tee'"?

Adam was quoted as

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Jumping up and down, clapping his hands and giggling with glee.

Re:Adam was quoted as

[elrous0]

Frankly, I would consider it an honor to have my minivan crushed by a Mythbusters experiment.

Re:Adam was quoted as

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

They said as much: "the MythBusters had been shooting episodes"

But frankly "the MythBusters had shooting episodes" would have covered that as well...

Re:Adam was quoted as

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus I am *sure* they have insurance to cover it...

Re:Adam was quoted as

[elrous0]

I'm pretty sure Discovery will cover it, and probably give them a substantial bonus and invite them to participate in the episode to boot.

Re:Adam was quoted as

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Yeah, maybe they will get to play Buster.

Re:Adam was quoted as

[tomboalogo]

Only if those 2 f'ing retards were inside!!!

Re:Adam was quoted as

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, me too. Cept I don't have a minivan. I'd probably want them to autograph the wreckage too and get a certificate of authenticity and all that. I might actually be annoyed with the house thing though but I imagine Discovery is good for it.

Still, this brings up an important security issue. I always thought that bomb ranges were, I dunno, more secure? If the Mythbusters stuff can get out of there, shouldn't conventional explosives be able to also?

Re:Adam was quoted as

[Anonymous Coward]

Until he was served with the lawsuit notice.

Re:Adam was quoted as

[davidbrit2]

You have to admit, finding your vehicle destroyed by an 18th century weapon would keep things from getting dull.

Re:Adam was quoted as

[93 Escort Wagon]

How can a person be "quoted as jumping up and down, clapping his hands and giggling with glee"? That makes absolutely no sense.

Could someone say "93 Escort Wagon was quoted as furiously typing an indignant response" about this reply?

All that aside - I really hope we get to see that on the show (although I doubt it will happen).

Re:Adam was quoted as

[khendron]

I'm pretty sure Discovery will cover it, and probably give them a substantial bonus and invite them to participate in the episode to boot.

I think they've already participated in the episode.

Re:Adam was quoted as

[elrous0]

They'll be listed in the credits as "Cannon Fodder."

Re:Adam was quoted as

[gd2shoe]

A good question. My guess is no. This one rolled. So heavy round things hurled with extreme directed force should be avoided at this range (in other words, cannons).

It does raise questions, though. I'd like to see cops answer this one.

Re:Adam was quoted as

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah as long as your coverage included an "Act of Hyneman" clause.

Re:Adam was quoted as

[Heddahenrik]

Isn't finding your vehicle destroyed by an 18th century weapon getting old?

Re:Adam was quoted as

[Dishevel]

I am not sure why you have such a hair up your ass about them but I assure you.
Given half a chance at being paid good money to "fuck around and blow shit up"?
I would murder 3 people and kick a small animal for the chance.

Re:Adam was quoted as

[Anonymous Coward]

Might be fun to explain to the insurance company.

Re:Adam was quoted as

[JoeMerchant]

Yeah, but was there camera coverage of the actual minivan strike, or just BDA (ball damage assessment)?

Re:Adam was quoted as

[rwhamann]

I doubt it. The vehicle owner's quote seems to indicate he was (legitimately) pissed at the potential danger to his family. Just a little while before, they had been in the vehicle.

Re:Adam was quoted as

[bluemonq]

This is more of an explosive disposal site than a military-level bomb range. We're not talking bunker-busters being dropped here; I figure that they stuff they do at the range doesn't usually involve all that many projectiles or other things that can bounce off a hilltop and keep going. It's just that Mythbusters has been doing this kind of thing there so long they figured it'd be okay.

Re:Adam was quoted as

[jones_supa]

I'd also like to know was it included on the show when they last time busted some homes' windows?

Re:Adam was quoted as

[publiclurker]

While they mentioned it on one of the best of shows, I do not remember them mentioning this during the actual episode.

Re:Adam was quoted as

[elrous0]

Guy buys a house 1/4 a mile away from a bomb range and is SHOCKED, JUST SHOCKED that there could be some risk to that? He should blame the developers and zoning board for even allowing houses to be built that close.

Re:Adam was quoted as

[Darinbob]

I tried using that as my excuse for getting into work late.

Re:Adam was quoted as

[codegen]

As long as you weren't in it..

Re:Adam was quoted as

[cffrost]

Just a little while before, they had been in the vehicle.

Yeah, ten minutes before. One time I walked across a street, and mere seconds later a bus was moving through the exact spot I was standing! I guess I'm "lucky to be alive," too.

Re:Adam was quoted as

[Holi]

Not just a bomb range, but also a jail and a reserves training area.

Re:Adam was quoted as

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll be listed in the credits as "Cannon Fodder."

Or "Cannon Fodder Driver"!

Re:Adam was quoted as

[DarthVain]

One hell of an insurance claim...

What do you mean cannonballs are not covered!

Re:Adam was quoted as

[pgpalmer]

But does your insurance cover damage by cannonball?

Re:Adam was quoted as

[ElderKorean]

Yeah, but was there camera coverage of the actual minivan strike, or just BDA (ball damage assessment)?

Next episode title 'See what a canonball can do to modern houses and cars' - a wreckers delight.

Re:Adam was quoted as

[Anonymous Coward]

i agree completely. these guys rock & kari is a fantasy, hot, plays with guns & blows shit up. 7 plus years & no one hurt badly. no one else here could claim that without lying.

Interns?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the interns who are never visible on the mythbusters episodes probably did it. I think they just photoshop in Jamie and Adam on most episodes.

Re:Interns?

[sexconker]

One of the interns who are never visible on the mythbusters episodes probably did it. I think they just photoshop in Jamie and Adam on most episodes.

They're not called interns. They're called "researchers".
As in "Our researchers have been able to find out that this actually happened once!". Or, more honestly, "We told Josh the intern to google this "myth" and he found the police report of when it happened 3 years ago but we're still going to do it anyway. Also we make Josh get us coffee and write with a silver sharpie on blue paper for all the stupid little diagrams. Kimberlee makes the same stupid high-contrast grids out of posterboard every week, but we don't even use them to measure speed since we already know the distance from the gun/cannon/thing to the target, and we know the framerate of the high speed camera. We just like to keep Kimberlee busy.".

Remember

[broginator]

Don't try any of this at home. They're what you call "professionals".

Re:Remember

[Reverand Dave]

Yes "professionals" performing "scientific experiments." That professionals line always makes me laugh.

Re:Remember

[rtfa-troll]

"Professionals" means that, unlike us slashdot posters, they get paid for being insane.

Re:Remember

[jellomizer]

Yes because unlike most do it at home they have insurance to cover it.
I mean if they did that in a bomb range. What would happen if average joe did it in their back yard.

Re:Remember

[Overzeetop]

Professional really just means you have insurance for when you screw up.

Re:Remember

[L4t3r4lu5]

They're professionals in the same way as Top Gear's Clarkson, May and Hammond are "professionals"; They dick about destroying stuff for entertainment, but have backgrounds in Seerius Bizniss.

Someone once compared that show to Last of the Summer Wine; Three old men getting into mischief.

Re:Remember

[tophermeyer]

I mean if they did that in a bomb range. What would happen if average joe did it in their back yard.

For me your point raises an interesting thought. Who are these people that are living within cannon shot of a bomb range? And would they really be all that surprised when some of their things accidentally get boomed?

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they'll try it at (or rather through) your home for you!

Re:Remember

[elrous0]

Obligatory xkcd, for smug dipshits who feel the need to inject "They're not REAL scientists" into every Mythbusters thread.

Re:Remember

[gurps_npc]

Wow, did Top Gear's Clarkson, May and Hammond work as professional drivers before they got their show?

Because Savage and Huneman worked as professional special effects artists before they started in Mythbusters.

That is what made them professionals. Support your claims.

Re:Remember

[blueg3]

Bomb ranges don't generally have cannons. That would be like living near an airport and expecting a boat to crash into your house.

Re:Remember

[empiricistrob]

I live a few miles away from this neighborhood. Just for clarification: This is your normal run of the mill suburban neighborhood. I'm guessing that the vast majority of the people who live in the area are unaware of the existence of the range.

Re:Remember

[cruff]

Could be a float plane (aka flying boat) that crashes into your house, just sayin. ;-)

Re:Remember

[rickett81]

Their results wouldn't hold up in a peer reviewed paper. But they start with a hypothesis and then go about trying to prove/disprove it.

They also achieve 4 worthwhile goals:

1) They get people interested in science.

2) They show scientific experimentation using a variety of tools.

3) They entertain.

4) See #1

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, did Top Gear's Clarkson, May and Hammond work as professional drivers before they got their show?

Because Savage and Huneman worked as professional special effects artists before they started in Mythbusters.

That is what made them professionals. Support your claims.

"Professionals" was used with "scientific experiments. Therefore Professional would mean scientist/engineer doing either ballistics research or in Top gear's case, automotive/aerospace/mechanical engineering ( actually just about any kind of engineering sans civil lol). Neither show has that kind of personnel. Furthermore Top Gear does not try to sell itself like that either. They give you opinions on uber expensive cars and occasionally compare to an affordable car. The only one on show that is a "expert" on driving is the Stig.

As for Mythbusters, almost every "experiment" they have done has significant issues with controls. The ability to define controls is the core talent of the "professional" scientist.

Re:Remember

[tompaulco]

That makes them professional special effects artists. It doesn't make them professional ballistics experts, or professionals in about 90% of the stuff that they do. It only makes them professionals in those 10% of episodes where they fake up something at the end to show how a video was faked. The rest of that stuff, they have no business doing and are just as likely to have an accident as you or I, except that they probably have professionals helping them that only rarely appear on camera.

Re:Remember

[operagost]

I would expect someone who works in special effects to have at least secondary expertise in the area of physics.

Re:Remember

[fooslacker]

Working as a professional FX dude doesn't make you a professional scientist which is what would be relevant when claiming that you are performing professional experiments. They have some very good mechanic/engineering skills and they have put them to use in a professional context but at the end of the day they're not super scientific with some of their tests and they usually end up just blowing stuff up for fun which is professional entertainment. Top Gear is very similar in that the main profession on that show is entertainment and not driving.

Re:Remember

[nospam007]

"That would be like living near an airport and expecting a boat to crash into your house."

Yes, or like being in that boat and a cow falling from the sky, sinking it.

http://www.rulesmaster.com/news/view/11

Re:Remember

[TubeSteak]

Except in some episodes with guns, the Mythbusters always show that they have a professional gun or explosives guy around.
The Mythbusters may be certified to do pyro and explosives, but they take care to show on TV that they have an outside expert, usually from law enforcement.

If they were shooting off home made cannons at the Alameda County Sheriff's Department bomb range,
then they probably had the Alameda County Sheriff's Department bomb squad present to supervise.

Having insurance just means that you have to follow whatever protocols your insurer demands.
Their premiums are definitely going to go up after this accident.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Top Gear's people are professional drivers, and on the show they drive.
Savage and Hyneman are professions special effects artists, posing as scientists, physicists, chemists etc. Not professionals.

Re:Remember

[delinear]

Fortunately for the homeowner it also probably means they're insured to the gills.

Re:Remember

[mike2R]

As someone who has written a fair amount of sales copy for services, I can tell you categorically that "professional" means that we intend to get paid for it.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

It means they are skilled in 'how to make something dangerous happen and not kill yourself.' With the content they choose to show, that is one of the best skills anyone could have.

Re:Remember

[mcgrew]

That professionals line always makes me laugh.

IINM they're professional special effects artists for film makers. One would have to have at least a little knowledge of physics to do that job.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, they have a team of engineers behind the camera making sure the insurance on Savage/Hyneman or Belleci/Imahara/Byron doesn't exceed the shows revenue.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

What amazes me is that they shot east instead of north....

Re:Remember

[Pope]

Top Gear's hosts are professional writers.

Re:Remember

[technos]

Clarkson and May were both automotive print journalists and reviewers/presenters on the old, more serious 'Top Gear', and Hammond was a professional radio and TV host, including a stint on 'Motor Week'.

In addition, they're all giant children.

So yes, they're all experts at what they do; Talk about cars and act like children on television.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot one of the most important parts. First they try to prove/disprove the myth. Then they find out under what conditions the myth *could* be plausible (usually the fun part). If that's not by the book scientific investigation, I don't know what is.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Clarkson was involved in radio entertainment as a child, trained as a journalist and became a writer specialising in the motoring industry before becoming a Top Gear presenter when Top Gear started. The original format was more serious than the current. I think it's fair to say that he worked as a professional journalist and a professional entertainer before becoming a professional entertaining journalist.
Hammond started out in radio before becoming a Top Gear presenter. I think it's fair to say that he's a professional entertainer.
May worked as a writer for motoring publications before becoming a TV presenter for a rival motoring show before moving to Top Gear. I think it's fair to say that he worked as a professional journalist and a professional entertainer before becoming a professional entertaining journalist.

Savage started out in acting before having a variety of entertainment-based jobs - "Savage has worked as an animator, graphic designer, carpenter, projectionist, film developer, television presenter, set designer, toy designer, and gallery owner. He worked as a model maker on the films Galaxy Quest, Bicentennial Man, Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, The Matrix Reloaded, and Space Cowboys, among others.", before becoming a pretend scientist.
Hyneman - "A variety of careers fill his resume, including scuba diver, wilderness survival expert, boat captain, linguist, pet shop owner, animal wrangler, machinist, concrete inspector, and chef". 8 "careers" prior to becoming a pretend scientist. He studied Russian in school. I find no reference to any professional special effects work prior to Mythbusters.

My source is wikipedia. Yeah, it's not perfect, but it's infinitely better than the sources that you used to support your claims.

Re:Remember

[JazzLad]

Hyneman still won't reply to your fanmail, huh?

Re:Remember

[mosb1000]

They never claim to be professional scientists or engineers. Their claim is related to the issue of safety alone. It's part of their warning. And the quote is "we're what you call experts," not professionals.

Also, you are way off base with you assertion that almost every experiment they have done has significant issues with controls. Usually they will duplicate an experiment exactly, changing only one variable. That's control.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't try any of this at home. They're what you call "professionals".

You don't have to try this at home. Now they deliver:)

Re:Remember

[Kiraxa]

Actually... Savage and Hyneman have Doctorates in Science. So, yes, they're professional scientists.

Re:Remember

[tixxit]

And their insurance company probably requires they have lots of real professionals around for the dangerous experiments.

Re:Remember

[canajin56]

They have control groups, and when it's not expensive they repeat the trials many times. Oh, you assumed because they show one trial that their "estimated velocity" and such are actually based on one trial and not 10 or 20? Wrong. Assuming something just because you saw no direct evidence isn't very scientific of you! The only problem is they only have 3 classifications for their results. They have sure and unsure confirmations, but no unsure refutation. That is, they're missing "Could Not Reproduce" or "Implausible" for things which they cannot pull off, and have legitimate theoretical/mathematical backing to say are unlikely. Technically most of the things they "Bust" actually belong to that unused category because you can't conclusively prove a negative through trial, and they end up being retested and actually being possible. But they make that pretty clear, that "Busted" doesn't mean impossible, just that not only could they not do it, but also that they think there's reason to believe that nobody could. And they often revisit "Busted" myths and confirm them, though usually that has to do with changing the myth (or their interpretation of what it means) rather than just trying the same thing some more. For example, when they revisited the "bullet through the scope" myth they tried it with an old WWII era scope. In their first trials they found that even armor piercing rounds didn't have the force to penetrate all of the lenses in a modern scope so they called it busted (even if by luck it could happen very rarely). But with the old scope with less glass in the way, they pulled it off right away. Both conclusions are correct, though it comes down to number of trials and what "sigma" it means to say "Busted". But that's just wordplay. It was still a scientific experiment, just with poorly-defined words in the conclusions. And they usually don't show us all of their trials and all of their figures, so we can't do our own calculations for the error bars. At any rate, if a sharpshooter hits a scope dead center 10 times and every time the bullet is deflected by the lenses, then even if you object to calling that "impossible" instead of "unlikely" it does bust the myth that it's a good idea to aim at the scope instead of the person behind it.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way they can validate this incident as scientific, would be to pay appropriate respect to Murphy's law, and discuss it's relevence throughout present technological history.

Or have they done that already?

Re:Remember

[spire3661]

From wikipedia: "Savage received an HONORARY doctorate from the University of Twente (Enschede, Netherlands) for his role in the popularization of science and technology;"

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

String Theorist by chance?

Re:Remember

[Quiet_Desperation]

The "scientific" makes me laugh. They do own an effects company, and still do industry work, so "professionals" is perfectly legit. I just got tired of the show being "blow it up" over and over again, and many times the explosions weren't exactly all that and a bag of chips. I can just watch one of those disaster compilation news clip shows and see better booms. Or just hit up YouTube.

Re:Remember

[DarkAce911]

So, what would be your take on the show "Rocket City Rednecks" and it's pair of Rednecks with actual PhD's in Physics?

Re:Remember

[Alsee]

I'm guessing that the vast majority of the people who live in the area are unaware of the existence of the [BOMB] range.

Interesting. I guess the vast majority of the people who live in the area also happen to be deaf.

-

Re:Remember

[Quiet_Desperation]

I dunno. Top Gear is funny. Do I really need to worry about it more than that? My only complaint is less drooling over cars I'll never even see much less own, and more fake trains on fire. :-)

Re:Remember

[Quiet_Desperation]

I thought the smug dipshits were usually the ones quoting xkcd? :-) Hey, I tease. Everypony calm down!

Good one about the string theorists, though.

Re:Remember

[Quiet_Desperation]

Godwin on a Mythbusters thread? Really? I am disappoint for shame.

Re:Remember

[buback]

I'm guessing that the vast majority of the people who live in the area are unaware of the existence of the range.

Sure, except for all those unexplained, window shaking explosions they keep hearing every once and a while

People don't go outside as much as they used to, but nobody is that unaware of what is within a half mile of their home. Otherwise, how do you explain NIMBY?

Re:Remember

[Kiraxa]

And honorary degrees are still academic degrees. Just with the standard requirements removed. From Wikipedia: "An honorary degree[1] or a degree honoris causa (Latin: "for the sake of the honour") is an academic degree for which a university (or other degree-awarding institution) has waived the usual requirements, such as matriculation, residence, study, and the passing of examinations. The degree is typically a doctorate or, less commonly, a master's degree, and may be awarded to someone who has no prior connection with the academic institution. Usually the degree is conferred as a way of honoring a distinguished visitor's contributions to a specific field, or to society in general. The university often derives benefits by association with the person in question."

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

NO U

FTFY

Re:Remember

[pr0fessor]

uhmmm... Honorary Doctorate From the University of Twente? Not that I don't love the show but let's not start any myths.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

I sincerely doubt #1 is actually true. People watch that show because they wanna see shit get blown up, not to be educated.

Re:Remember

[fooslacker]

Actually, a degree does not make you a professional. Being paid for work in a specific field makes you a professional in that field strictly speaking. There is some connotation to the word implying a certain level of competency which a degree can point to but it's only an indication not something that makes you a professional. Also honorary degrees don't count. ;)

Re:Remember

[darien.train]

Dude. Do you even watch the show? Half of it is on-camera experts talking about experiment logistics and safety procedures. For example the explosives expert Frank Doyle they've used to supervise every explosion at the Alameda County Sheriff's Bomb Range since the show began. I know the dudes name and the the range because Frank Doyle has been in like 30 episodes.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

1) They convince the clueless public that what they do is scientific when its not.

2) They show experiments, not scientific experiments. How can it be a scientific experiment when you don't even identify all the variables?

3) Yes that is all they really do.

Re:Remember

[Bradmont]

Sometimes snopes disappoints me... http://www.snopes.com/critters/farce/cowtao.asp I apologise to all who, like me, had their high hopes that this story could be true, broken.

Re:Remember

[ColdWetDog]

Their premiums are definitely going to go up after this accident.

And perhaps a few extra clauses like "no more cannons".

Re:Remember

[Hentes]

I mean if they did that in a bomb range. What would happen if average joe did it in their back yard.

It would land in the bomb range, of course.

Re:Remember

[mattrwilliams]

... were unaware

Re:Remember

[sexconker]

"Professionals" was used with "scientific experiments. Therefore Professional would mean scientist/engineer doing either ballistics research or in Top gear's case, automotive/aerospace/mechanical engineering ( actually just about any kind of engineering sans civil lol).

Just need to chime in here.
Civil engineering is "engineering" in the same way political science is "science".
(It's not.)

Re:Remember

[sexconker]

I would expect someone who works in special effects to have at least secondary expertise in the area of physics.

You can expect that all you want, yet here we are.

Re:Remember

[sexconker]

Actually... Savage and Hyneman have Doctorates in Science. So, yes, they're professional scientists.

They're PHDs in the same manner that Obama is a Nobel Prize recipient.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

I can immediately think of two airports that are near water, Portland and San Francisco.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody here over-analyzes everything to a pathetic level. How scientific.

Re:Remember

[tlhIngan]

If they were shooting off home made cannons at the Alameda County Sheriff's Department bomb range,
then they probably had the Alameda County Sheriff's Department bomb squad present to supervise.

I believe the bomb range supervisor's name is J. D. Morgan, aka "JD". And usually the one seen wiring up explosives and such during episodes. Usually with ex-FBI explosives expert Frank Doyle.

And Savage and Hyneman probably are experienced in pyro and explosives, but only in the small quantities they use on film. The stuff generally used to explode bigger items requires a lot more of everything.

Re:Remember

[dmmiller2k]

You forgot one:

1. 1) They get people interested in science.
2. 2) They show scientific experimentation using a variety of tools.
3. 3) They entertain.
4. 4) See #1
5. 5) They blow stuff up (or shoot at stuff) at every possible opportunity, whether it relates to the hypothesis or not (see #3).

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Hammond is not a giant child. He's a fairly average sized child.

Re:Remember

[Amouth]

i'm sorry but civil engineers design and build may things that would never want someone who was not a "engineer" to do, starting with builds, bridges, dams.

Re:Remember

[harl]

A float plane is not a flying boat. It's a plane that can land on water.

It's purpose is still to travel in the air not to travel on water.

A humming bird eats nectar does that make it a bee?

Plus float planes don't generally land at airports. They land on lakes.

Re:Remember

[pclminion]

Their premiums are definitely going to go up after this accident.

That makes no sense. The only type of insurance I am aware of where your premium will be jacked up after making a claim, is auto insurance. Insurance is supposed to cover the unforeseeable. If we did not expect the unforeseeable to occur, we wouldn't bother insuring against it. So raising a premium because of a claim filed would purely be punitive.

Besides, Mythbuster's insurance probably has a deductible larger than the damage done to the house. I mean, how much damage can you really do with a cannon ball? A hundred thou'? If I were them I'd just pay it out of pocket.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually... Savage and Hyneman have Doctorates in Science. So, yes, they're professional scientists.

They're PHDs in the same manner that Obama is a Nobel Prize recipient.

For not being George Bush?

Re:Remember

[Amouth]

*buildings

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

1) They convince the clueless public that what they do is scientific when its not.

See xkcd. At the core what they do is scientific. The bookkeeping is where it is lacking,

2) They show experiments, not scientific experiments. How can it be a scientific experiment when you don't even identify all the variables?

You are confusing what they do with how they present it.

3) Yes that is all they really do.

That's a self-affirming meaningless statement. Very scientific.

Re:Remember

[steelfood]

the vast majority of the people who live in the area are unaware of the existence of the range.

Until now.

Re:Remember

[dominious]

Dude I've read your list 10 times to realize there is no break! Next time put a counter or something...

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

There are flying boats. Same difference. You're just being difficult for the sake of being difficult. Furthermore, flying debris is a fact of life at a bomb range. The fact its a cannon ball versus some other debris is immaterial.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow I don't think Feynman was thinking of Mythbusters when he said that.

What use is an experiment if your methodology is unsound and your conclusions are retarded? Your data is only as good as your methods. There is no way to get good data with bad methods.

Re:Remember

[Alomex]

What use is an experiment if your methodology is unsound

Their methodology is not any worse than that which was in use 110 years ago by lead scientists.

Damn, they are not trying to measure the speed of neutrinos, they are testing some basic facts that are a lot more robust to bad experimental design.

If you disagree, repeat the experiment under proper controls and obtain the opposite result. That's how science is done, after all.

Re:Remember

[fahrbot-bot]

Their results wouldn't hold up in a peer reviewed paper.

Nor did Cold Fusion ... Science is about process and critical thinking not just results.

Re:Remember

[khallow]

Insurance is supposed to cover the unforeseeable. If we did not expect the unforeseeable to occur, we wouldn't bother insuring against it. So raising a premium because of a claim filed would purely be punitive.

The accident is new information. You should expect some change afterward.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

User "Amouth" just replied to user "sexconker".

Sure you guys don't know each other in another setting?

Re:Remember

[styrotech]

Civil engineering is "engineering" in the same way political science is "science".
(It's not.)

Do go on...

I'm curious as to how this great deception that has been done to to the general public. Those dastardly civil engineers have managed to get their blasphemy taught in actual engineering schools alongside other forms of engineering - even being taught a lot of the same common subjects as other engineers and shockingly ending up with the same degrees. They have managed to infiltrate and even head professional engineering bodies in quite a few countries.

How have they managed to pull this off?

Re:Remember

[styrotech]

What if you live in a houseboat near an airport?

Re:Remember

[khallow]

not even close to real scientific experimentation

A good example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

So while you may feel justified in labeling me as a "dipshit" for pointing this out

Based on available evidence (such as ignorance of what "professional" and "scientific experiment" means), I feel justified in labeling you a "dipshit".

Re:Remember

[spire3661]

I am well aware of what it means in theory, in practice it means squat.

Re:Remember

[forkazoo]

You would be deaf too, if you lived next to a bomb range!

Re:Remember

[DinDaddy]

I do and I do. Virtually none of my coworkers do.

Re:Remember

[DinDaddy]

I might go for sometimes on the control, but definitely not "usually". They have improved a lot since the early episodes on that front though.

Re:Remember

[aztektum]

Professional is one of those words that, thanks to decades of abuse by advertisers, has lost it's meaning.

Re:Remember

[ceoyoyo]

And insurance.

Re:Remember

[ceoyoyo]

In some professions a degree is a prerequisite. But the degree by itself never makes you a professional.

And honorary degrees don't count for anything. That's why they're usually given in laws or philosophy.

Re:Remember

[ceoyoyo]

Yes, it is. It wouldn't take very much to improve, but unfortunately their methodology is worse than a high school physics class.

They draw conclusions from single tests (those are called anecdotes). That's fine for things like "can we make a water heater explode?" but it's not okay for "is a car driving with it's windows open more efficient than one with the air conditioner on?"

Galileo know all about rolling marbles down inclined planes LOTS OF TIMES (and that's quite a bit farther back than 110 years). It actually wouldn't take very much for the Mythbusters to introduce the idea of a standard error, and they've come tantalizingly close a few times.

Re:Remember

[stackOVFL]

I watch to see if Adam is going to burn off his eyebrows again. The first time was funny as hell. But yeah, I guess blowing stuff up is fun too

Re:Remember

[ceoyoyo]

Household insurance usually does something similar, although it's frequently hidden in things like "losing your no claims bonus."

For special case insurance like the Mythbusters have, it wouldn't be at all surprising if their insurance went up. The insurance company will look at this incident, realize what they do is maybe a bit more dangerous than previously assessed, and revise appropriately.

Re:Remember

[Alomex]

They draw conclusions from single tests (those are called anecdotes).

You don't watch the show much do you? Every so often they say that for every test they show on TV they run several others off camera.

Nit pick: a single, reproducible test is a data point. An anecdote is non-reproducible/non-controlled situation. Hence the quip from Roger Brinner "the plural of anecdote is not data."** The plural of single tests is data.

**Even then Brinner overreached as famously shown by Roland Fryer (a MacArthur "genius" fellow) who showed that in some cases controls can be introduced post facto and thus valid logical conclusions can be gained from uncontrolled statistical data i.e. a collection of anecdotes.

It actually wouldn't take very much for the Mythbusters to introduce the idea of a standard error, and they've come tantalizingly close a few times.

I don't expect them to introduce the formal definitions. This show is meant to plant the thought of science in people. It is not meant to give them a degree in physics. That's what universities are for.

I've seen shows where they have introduced standard error as much as I would let them introduce standard error if I were the producer. I do agree to a certain extent that perhaps they could do this more often, but can you say with certainty that this wouldn't just confuse people more or make them tune out?

They are walking a fine balance and there aren't many other successful science shows watched by non-scientific minds.

For example, Jamie often runs back of the envelope calculations using physics but these are rarely shown, since they make for boring TV.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is you agree with me completely...um ok...that might be a first for a slashdot reply ;)

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Apologies for the run away bold tag. (if only someone would invent a process to change something one wrote in a computer).

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

That is what made them professionals. Support your claims.

No, that's not.

What makes someone a professional is if they get paid for it.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

AHHH... this loop doesn't contain a break.... I hate you goto

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

The experiment that went awry was done by Kari Tori and Grant.

WTF is your rant about again? Who has no business doing what? They are talent on a tv show, surrounded by experts. Jesus fucking christ, get over yourself.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Bomb ranges don't generally have cannons. That would be like living near an airport and expecting a boat to crash into your house.

Indeed. Artillery should be tested at a firing range, not a bomb range. -1 Alameda County Sheriff's Department. +1 Mojave Desert.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Their results wouldn't hold up in a peer reviewed paper.

.... Mmmm not so much.. try again

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-scientific-data-really.html

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mom's a practitioner of the oldest profession.

Re:Remember

[StillAnonymous]

You can't possibly identify all the variables because most myths are vague and unspecific. They aren't written like scientific hypothesis with a set of conditions attached. It's simple, one sentence stuff like "polished shields set a ship on fire."

Christ, people like you have no idea what this show would be like if it was set up "your" way. You'd have teams of scientists working for months just to get a single episode going, it would be boring as hell, require millions in government grants, cancelled after a single season, and in the end probably wind up with similar, inconclusive results because none of the "scientists" could come to an agreement on what the parameters of the tests should be.

Re:Remember

[drsquare]

What would a bomb squad know about cannons? America must be the only country in the world where someone could fire a cannon at a residential area, and not only are the perps not arrested, a whole host of people crawl out of the woodwork to defend them.

I know you have the second amendment, but this is ridiculous.

If they had any actual outside experts, they could have told them how far the cannonball could travel, and that it could bounce.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it also a deaf neighborhood? Bombs tend to make a lot of noise....

Re:Remember

[L4t3r4lu5]

Clarkson, May, and Hammond all have roots in motoring journalism; Hammond in Motorweek as well as radio presenting, May in The Engineer, Autocar, and Car Magazine and radio presenting, and Clarkson formed the Motoring Press Agency and has been in Top Gear since its inception.

I never said they were professional drivers, just like I said the Mythbusters team weren't professional scientists. I said they had a background in business before moving into entertainment.

Re:Remember

[Shienarier]

I know that at least Clarkson has been a writer for car magazines since for ever.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw that, I'm trying to figure out how they built a cannon that could fire all the way from San Francisco to Dublin. Did they go west over the Pacific and Asia and all, or across the entire US and Atlantic Ocean? Did it enter orbit, or just take a massive parabolic arc? Either way, that's one hell of a cannon! /sarcasm

Re:Remember

[tehcyder]

I dunno. Top Gear is funny. Do I really need to worry about it more than that? My only complaint is less drooling over cars I'll never even see much less own, and more fake trains on fire. :-)

Well, if you watch a film about jet fighters or the space shuttle, it's even less likely you're going to own/drive one of those, but the show can still be extremely interesting. You can't expect a car show just to stick to sensible family cars. What may seem ridiculously expensive to one person might be quite justifiable to someone else.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair this could actually happen at Sydney Airport!

Re:Remember

[tehcyder]

Their premiums are definitely going to go up after this accident.

That makes no sense. The only type of insurance I am aware of where your premium will be jacked up after making a claim, is auto insurance. Insurance is supposed to cover the unforeseeable. If we did not expect the unforeseeable to occur, we wouldn't bother insuring against it. So raising a premium because of a claim filed would purely be punitive.

Besides, Mythbuster's insurance probably has a deductible larger than the damage done to the house. I mean, how much damage can you really do with a cannon ball? A hundred thou'? If I were them I'd just pay it out of pocket.

I think you'll find that your household (contents) insurance premium will go up if you make a claim.

Re:Remember

[Yardboy]

I'm guessing that the vast majority of the people who live in the area are unaware of the existence of the range.

"were" unaware of the existence of the range.

Re:Remember

[DiEx-15]

Professional House Busters, that is!

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, how did they not know that a CANNONBALL would go thru a cinderblock wall?? lol

http://arc.id.au/Cannonballs.html

Sizes range from 4 - 32lbs of these british cannonballs. Even a 4lb projectile hurled at 20-30ft/s would go thru a cinderblock wall. Those things are NOT very tensile strong, just compression strong. You can drop one at a certain angle from about 3-4 feet on concrete and it will be smashed to bits.

Re:Remember

[DarthVain]

No. Professional just means you get PAID to do it.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Goes up when you don't have a claim, either.

Goes up when you look at it funny.

Re:Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

There are several myths where none of the cast demonstrate even a basic knowledge of momentum or thermodynamics.

Now, they may have forgotten those topics in their line of work, but by and large they are craftsmen and artists, not engineers or scientists.

Re:Remember

[ceoyoyo]

I'm not saying the Mythbusters don't put on a good show, or aren't doing a good thing by getting people interested in science, but what they really do is mostly engineering, particularly the test to destruction kind. They certainly aren't doing science that's in any way rigorous, not even to 150 year old standards as the post I replied to insisted.

To nit pick your nit pick:
A datum is distinguished from an anecdote by at least the possibility that it may become plural. That is, the experiment is repeatable. SOMETIMES the myth busters do repeatable experiments, but usually they don't. For example, the air conditioning vs. open window one. What they ended up with is a nice story about this time they tested the myth. It's not a datum because their experimental setup wasn't controlled enough to be replicated, by them or anyone else.

Anecdotes CAN become data. Much of science, maybe even most, is observational studies. You measure whatever you can and use stats to "control" for various factors you're not interested in, after the fact.

Re:Remember

[Quiet_Desperation]

OK. I was just stating an opinion. I have Tivo so I can skip the boring supercar bits, unless it's something *really* unique like the Ariel Atom that James May tested a while back. I seek to make no directive to the Top Gear crew. ;-) Just saw the Middle East "Three Wise Men" show. Classic punchline at the end. The Stig truly is a mystery.

Intercontinental!

[jabberw0k]

To shoot a cannon-ball from San Francisco to Dublin is quite a feat. Wait, not that Dublin?

Re:Intercontinental!

[jellomizer]

Myth: can you build an intercontinental projectal. With duct tape and cheese.

Re:Intercontinental!

[mwvdlee]

What's the shortest distance between any two continents, anywhere in the world?

Re:Intercontinental!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if you think Europe and Asia are two different continents, 0ft. And since Mythbusters have built a duct tape cannon and fired cheese out of a cannon, myth confirmed.

Re:Intercontinental!

[Kommet]

I'm guessing it's either North and South America or else Europe and Asia.

Re:Intercontinental!

[Lev13than]

What's the shortest distance between any two continents, anywhere in the world?

If you exclude continents that are actually touching, then the Europe and Africa across the Straits of Gibralter. The gap is only 14.3km at it's narrowest, so transcontinental artillery is easily achievable (105mm howitzers have a range well in excess of 15km, and larger artillery can go much, much further). Of course, a traditional cannonball maxes out at a few hundred yards so setting up the Mythbusters experiment in Morocco would have merely been a hazard to shipping, not buildings.

Re:Intercontinental!

[Anonymous Coward]

Either this was not a traditional cannon ball or my perspective of a few hundred yards is different than yours. Before the cannon ball entered a home on the ground floor went up the stairs exited the second story, crossed 6 lanes of traffic, bounced off a tiled roof, and ended up destroying a minivan, it traveled 700 yards after penetrating a concrete wall. (Magic Cannon Ball) I would say that it had plenty of energy to make it at least 1km, still probably not enough to make it across the Straits of Gibraltar. None the less, I wonder how often we would go to war if modern projectiles took such a random path? It is one thing to get a group of comrades taken out by direct fire, it is another thing to have a bowling ball bouncing around amongst your comrades, that happens to bounce up take your neighbor out, skip the next guy and then get some other guy and continue on randomly until all the kinnetic energy has been dissipated.

Re:Intercontinental!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok - so here's a reference for an 18th-Century canon that had a range of 2,400m: http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/cannon.htm. So more than a few hundred yards, but certainly not intercontinental...

Re:Intercontinental!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, in other words between Eurasia and Eurasia or America and America(*). Isn't that the same distance as between, say, Australia and Australia?

*) yeah, no plural. That'd be a USianism.

Re:Intercontinental!

[Anonymous Coward]

A wrinkle in time, obviously.

Re:Intercontinental!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in some circles, Europe and Asia are different continents. Anywhere on the line connecting the two would definitely be shorter.

Re:Intercontinental!

[reub2000]

Nice try. An ICBM is a missile that can travel over 5500km.

Re:Intercontinental!

[meltyman2]

But they are generally not made out of duct tape and cheese.

Re:Intercontinental!

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in World War 2 the Germans could shoot clear across the English Channel around Dover. The English were slightly cross about this and they shot back.

Re:Intercontinental!

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the shortest distance between any two continents, anywhere in the world?

If you exclude continents that are actually touching, then the Europe and Africa across the Straits of Gibralter. The gap is only 14.3km at it's narrowest, so transcontinental artillery is easily achievable (105mm howitzers have a range well in excess of 15km, and larger artillery can go much, much further). Of course, a traditional cannonball maxes out at a few hundred yards so setting up the Mythbusters experiment in Morocco would have merely been a hazard to shipping, not buildings.

Little Diomede Island (USA) is only 3.9km from Big Diomede Island (Russia)

Re:Intercontinental!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say the shortest distance is zero -- if you're counting the arbitrary boundaries between N. and S. America or Europe and Asia

Re:Intercontinental!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, if you fire the cannonball in line with the base of the target fortification, as you traditionally would; but maybe if you got the trajectory and the winds right...?

I mean, this cannonball managed to punch through an anti-bomb wall, bounce off a hill, smash through a house, and total a truck, over probably a multi-hundred-feet total distance if not total displacement.

P.S. The Panama Canal is only 100ft wide at it's shortest point, and there are serious reasons why many geographers consider it enough to make North and South America "not actually touching" anymore.

Re:Intercontinental!

[ceoyoyo]

It's also not a projectile.

Re:Intercontinental!

[Talderas]

If you're talking non-touching continents then it's still Europe and Asia.

The Dardanelles separates Europe from Asia and its narrowest point is 1.2km.

The Bosphorus separates Europe from Asia and its narrowest point is 700m.

Re:Intercontinental!

[_0xd0ad]

Yes it is. Did you miss the "ballistic" part of "inter-continental ballistic missile"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile

A ballistic missile is a missile that follows a sub-orbital ballistic flightpath with the objective of delivering one or more warheads to a predetermined target. The missile is only guided during the relatively brief initial powered phase of flight and its course is subsequently governed by the laws of orbital mechanics and ballistics.

There's a short time in which it is guided and powered. The rest of the time, it's a projectile, no different from a cannonball (which also was guided and powered for a short time).

Re:Intercontinental!

[ceoyoyo]

"Projectile" can technically mean anything that moves, including something like a cruise missile that's powered the whole way. From the context of this thread, it's clear that "projectile" is being used as in definition 1 here, to mean something that does not propel itself. A ballistic missile has a rocket engine and propels itself. "Ballistic" doesn't imply "projectile."

Re:Intercontinental!

[_0xd0ad]

From the context of this thread, it's clear that "projectile" is being used ... to mean something that does not propel itself.

A ballistic missile does not propel itself for the majority of its flight.

A ballistic missile has a rocket engine and propels itself.

It does for a short period of time, during its launch. It does not during its ballistic flight.

"Ballistic" doesn't imply "projectile."

Yes, it does.

"ballistic"
1: of or relating to ballistics or to a body in motion according to the laws of ballistics

"ballistics"
1a: the science of the motion of projectiles in flight
  b: the flight characteristics of a projectile

Anything that includes the word "ballistic" by definition must have most, or at least a significant part, of its motion be non-powered and propelled only by its inertia.

Re:Intercontinental!

[ceoyoyo]

As I said, "projectile" can mean anything that moves. By your definition any orbital spacecraft is a projectile with FAR greater range than an ICBM. Clearly this is irrelevant to the discussion.

I'm not arguing with you that an ICBM does not spend most of it's time in ballistic flight (it's in the name after all). I'm saying that it is clear from the context of this thread that "projectile" means an unpowered projectile, as shot from a gun, as in the definition I provided. A ballistic missile (or any other kind of rocket or missile) does not count because it is powered.

It is FAR easier to design a rocket with a long range than it is to build an unpowered projectile with the same range.

Re:Intercontinental!

[_0xd0ad]

The whole point is that it's not irrelevant to the discussion. You get something moving really fast, and then it becomes a ballistic projectile. An ICBM is a perfectly valid example of an inter-continental projectile.

Re:Intercontinental!

[reub2000]

Now, if only you could power this ICBM with salami. Now that's a tasty projectile.

Re:Intercontinental!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a tasty projectile in my pants.

Funny Stuff

[methano]

So the cannon ball flies through the neighborhood at 4:15 PM when all the kids are coming home from school and tears through a house where the parents and kids are sleeping.

So why are they sleeping in the middle of the afternoon?

Just curious.

Re:Funny Stuff

[Hatta]

I'm guessing they're new parents.

Re:Funny Stuff

[JSBiff]

Since you've apparently never been explained the meaning of the word "nap", let me provide a link to the definition:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nap

Re:Funny Stuff

[deniable]

I know that one, the cannon-ball followed the nap-of-the-earth.

Re:Funny Stuff

[Nutria]

One parent napping in the afternoon is reasonable, but both???

Unless the non-caregiver works at night...

Re:Funny Stuff

[d3ac0n]

Heh. Spoken by a true non-parent.

It's called: "baby asleep in the crib, Parents having nookie very quietly in the bed." Many many parents have done it.

Unless, of course, we have a night-shift worker parent and a very tired child care parent. Which also makes sense.

Sometimes you sleep when the baby does.

Re:Funny Stuff

[speedlaw]

You sleep when the baby sleeps-it's easier to let it win in the beginning before we destroy their time sense and make them use clocks.

Re:Funny Stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? That's the part of the story that makes you say hmmm? The fact that reportedly a 6-inch cannonball fired from a homemade cannon busts through a cinder-block wall, then bounces off a hillside, then flies 700 yards and bounces again, then goes through a front door, bounces up a stairway and into a bedroom where it proceeds to bust through a stucco wall, and after all that, still had enough energy to fly over to a neighboring house hitting its roof and destroying a few roof tiles, crosses a six lane highway (still in the air, presumably) over into another neighborhood and crashes into a parked minivan shattering its windshield and destroying its dashboard is all copacetic with you, but taking a nap in the afternoon makes the story hard to believe?

Re:Funny Stuff

[happylight]

In some culture it's quite commonplace for everyone to take afternoon naps. Where I came from public schools had designated afternoon nap time when students and teachers napped.

It was quite the weird transition moving to United States where people considered it bizarre.

Re:Funny Stuff

[elrous0]

Hey, they once shot a helium tank through a cinder block wall just by knocking the valve off of it. Took off like a rocket.

Re:Funny Stuff

[Nutria]

Heh. Spoken by a true non-parent.

Spoken like a parent of two kids who has an "8-to-5" job! When my kids were infants, I was in sitting in a cubicle every morning and afternoon. (Now I telecommute.)

It's called: "baby asleep in the crib, Parents having nookie very quietly in the bed." Many many parents have done it.

Only during the evening. Or on weekends when I was actually home during the afternoon.

Re:Funny Stuff

[Nutria]

In some culture it's quite commonplace for everyone to take afternoon naps. Where I came from public schools had designated afternoon nap time when students and teachers napped.

It was quite the weird transition moving to United States where people considered it bizarre.

"Teachers and young children" doesn't sound like "everyone".

Anyhow, it's quite common (in my part of the US, at least) for pre-K and Kindergarten children to nap in class during the early afternoon. Younger grade school kids nap as a soon as they come home.

Re:Funny Stuff

[delinear]

It's called: "baby asleep in the crib, Parents having nookie very quietly in the bed."

"Wow, I don't know what you just did differently but the earth really moved that time..."

Re:Funny Stuff

[IgnacioB]

After I saw what a water heater explode through two floors of a house, a bullet spin on ice, and learned that flatus burns in two different colors from the show....I don't find much of what they do hard to believe.

Re:Funny Stuff

[delinear]

When you say it like that... maybe we need another episode of Mythbusters to test the journey of the canonball in this episode.

Re:Funny Stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

If you pull up a topographic or terrain map of the area, you can see the house is lower than the sheriff's department. The cannonball can pick up a whole lot of kinetic energy going downhill. Parts of that area have more than 200 ft difference in elevation. Like dropping it off a 20 story building.

Re:Funny Stuff

[boley1]

Every one thinks it was a Cannonball. Actually it was a large Wham-O SuperBall!

Re:Funny Stuff

[happylight]

We had nap time in elementary, junior and high school as well.

Re:Funny Stuff

[Nerdos]

In places like southern Spain, the world just stops between 3 and 5. Shops are closed, streets become deserted, everyone is napping. I'm using this example as it's from my own experience, but it's somewhat commonplace in very hot countries, as the temperature becomes somewhat unbearable around 3 in the afternoon, so it's a way to cope.This way you actually improve productivity, since people can then work another while after the nap. And i'm sure the game could have.changed a little with the proliferation of A/C, but it's a lot less common then in the u.s., and or not available in some poorer countries (not available easily, or not viable with electricity costs, etc..)

Re:Funny Stuff

[Nutria]

I can only imagine that happening in some place hot enough to need an afternoon siesta and poor enough that you can't afford air conditioners and the electricity to run them.

Re:Funny Stuff

[JSBiff]

I think the point is, while it might not be *typical* for both parents to be home in the afternoon and napping, it's not completely unusual either. There are plenty of people who have to work 3rd shift (not just factory workers, but also people like doctors, nurses, EMT, police, fire, utility workers (the power plant's gotta run all the time; power lines might need repaired at 2am), etc), and in such households, it woudn't be strange for whoever is the primary caregiver to put the kids down for a nap while the "breadwinner" is sleeping so that they can go to work rested at 6 or 8 or 10pm. If the kids and the spouse are napping, why not take the opportunity to get a little rest yourself?

Re:Funny Stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

This is, quite possibly, the best comment I've ever read on slashdot. LOL'd.

Re:Funny Stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

It broke my foundation. Where do I send the bill?

Re:Funny Stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one magic cannonball!

Re:Funny Stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

"then goes through a front door, bounces up a stairway and into a bedroom where it proceeds to bust through a stucco wall, and after all that, still had enough energy to fly over to a neighboring house hitting its roof and destroying a few roof tiles, crosses a six lane highway (still in the air, presumably) over into another neighborhood and crashes into a parked minivan shattering its windshield and destroying its dashboard"

Blasts through a front door after flying THROUGH a brick wall, flying several hundred yards, yet "bounces up a stairway", bursts through an exterior wall, and still had the energy to fly over to another house, and across a highwayt and through part of a minivan, that's what I'm having a hard time believing, especially up the stairs rather than THROUGH the stairs...

Re:Funny Stuff

[Nutria]

That's why I originally wrote "Unless the non-caregiver works at night...".

Re:Funny Stuff

[sexconker]

Heh. Spoken by a true non-parent.

Spoken like a parent of two kids who has an "8-to-5" job! When my kids were infants, I was in sitting in a cubicle every morning and afternoon. (Now I telecommute.)

It's called: "baby asleep in the crib, Parents having nookie very quietly in the bed." Many many parents have done it.

Only during the evening. Or on weekends when I was actually home during the afternoon.

For all you know your wife and the mail man were having nookie in the bed every weekday.
I doubt it was quiet, though.

Re:Funny Stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Magic bullet myth anyone ?

Re:Funny Stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion? Don't Muslims sleep around that time for an hour or so?

Re:Funny Stuff

[scharkalvin]

Actually it was a tank of welding gas though they might have used compressed air (non-flammable) for safety.

Re:Funny Stuff

[kevinNCSU]

There's plenty of people work a 6-2 or 7-3 in places where traffic is unruly at conventional rush hour times. There's no reason not to let your employees do this if they're office workers that just need to get 8 hours of work in.

Re:Funny Stuff

[steelfood]

Sure. That's because we know that with sufficient energy, a round cannonball will be able to do that. This is because due to its shape, at each point of impact, not all of the energy is transferred out of the cannonball and into the receptacle.

The only points where it probably lost a significant amount of energy was through the cinder-block wall (which may not be much if the wall just consisted of blocks stacked and not held together by anything), the front door (which again may not be a lot if the door is cheap), the stucco wall, and finally the minivan. And at that time, there either wasn't enough energy to continue bouncing, or it hit the minivan at an angle where the minivan's body absorbed the rest of the energy.

All in all, it's completely feasible. But people napping in the afternoon? It's not Europe you know.

Re:Funny Stuff

[bryan1945]

Day off? Vacation? One is a 2nd/3rd shift worker? Lunch time nap? Work/telecommute from home? Got off early?
Oh my, people have different schedules! Hysteria!

Re:Funny Stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

That's easily explained by the cannon on the grassy knoll.

Re:Funny Stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

"It then paused- in mid-air, mind you- and continued to the left. Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left."

Re:Funny Stuff

[Electricity Likes Me]

It couldn't have been acetylene since that's stored in foam filled tanks.

Re:Funny Stuff

[codegen]

You assume that the terrain is flat. Assuming that the second house is significanly lower than the first house, then its not quite as hard to believe.

Re:Funny Stuff

[codegen]

I take it back, looking at the video posted, it appears it was bouncing all over the place.

Re:Funny Stuff

[cffrost]

"baby asleep in the crib, Parents FUCKING very quietly in the bed."

FTFY. For fuck's sake, "nookie?" Spare us, please. Talking about a baby doesn't justify talking like a baby.

Re:Funny Stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess...you're one of those fucking fucks who fucking uses "fuck" for every fucking thing?

He used "nookie" because it shows that his vocabulary is larger than three words. Use your brain sometimes.

Re:Funny Stuff

[tehcyder]

Only during the evening. Or on weekends when I was actually home during the afternoon.

Or, during the day when the iceman cometh...

Up stairs and through walls

[Securityemo]

and still having enough force to skip across the road and bounce off a roof? You'd think that friction would have stopped it. Wonder what the stairs looked like afterwards.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[Shirogitsune]

Slather it with enough lard and you don't have to worry so much about friction. ;)

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you say that to all the boys.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[v1]

You'd think that friction would have stopped it.

There's a lot of energy in a canonball due to its high mass and usual velocity. (and they tend to be round and rather smooth also) It takes quite a lot to stop one. They're designed to smash through stuff, and they do a pretty good job of it.

Even smaller canon shots would typically go in one side of a ship and out the other unless they hit something really substantial. They also had special twin balls that were chained together and fired out a single barrel, that would be aimed at sail masts. If the shot was on and luck was good, a ball would go past both sides of the mast, and the chain would slice right through the mast and take down some of the sails, allowing the pursuing ship to catch up. Some serious energy there.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[djsmiley]

Except most cannons are mounted on the side, not front of ships... which means your actually firing this as you take over / turn.... not from behind :)

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[tylernt]

They also had special twin balls that were chained together and fired out a single barrel, that would be aimed at sail masts. If the shot was on and luck was good, a ball would go past both sides of the mast, and the chain would slice right through the mast

I'm dubious. Mythbusters should test that myth... oh wait.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[gurps_npc]

Momentum is a killer. Heavy weight + even low speed = will not stop.

Back when they used cannonballs in war, they used to fire "ground balls". The balls would bounce along on the ground, moving rather slowly.

Ineveitably some newbie would see it and try to stop it with his foot.

The next day they call those newbies "Stumpie" .

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[d3ac0n]

Except most cannons are mounted on the side, not front of ships... which means your actually firing this as you take over / turn.... not from behind :)

Most British (and American) Ships of the Line from the late 17th and 18th centuries had long range forward facing guns called "Long Nines". These were cast iron, "9 pound" guns usually 8 or 9 feet in length used as a "chase gun" firing from the bow or stern of the ship. On the larger ships such as the classic British "Man of War", often entire broadside batteries were "long nines".

This was part of the reason why the British fleet ruled the seas for so long. They could take out an enemy from a range so far the enemy could not shoot back.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[virg_mattes]

Many descriptions of naval tactics involve turning broadside during pursuit, the idea being that the damage you do to the leading vessel will make up for the loss of progress you suffer from doing it. Also, back in sail days ship pursuits could last for days, so what's another twenty minutes if you might cripple your target or convince them to surrender?

Virg

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[Anonymous Coward]

Except most cannons are mounted on the side, not front of ships... which means your actually firing this as you take over / turn.... not from behind :)

The ships are not cars on a highway, confined to parallel tracks. You could make a sharp turn until you have opponent in your gunners' sights, then fire the guns while you are in position.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[Darkinspiration]

You never heard of chaser gun ? Specialy design cannon either on the bow or sturn sometime both.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the two balls with chain deal wasn't meant to really meant to break the mast, it was meant to catch and break a bunch of the rigging (ropes) used to string up the sails.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are attributing too much accuracy to chain shot. There is a lot of rigging holding up the sails and masts, think well managed tangle of lines. The point of the chain shot was to tear up as much as possible. If you managed to part enough of their lines then their sails or masts would fall down, eliminating their propulsion. The purpose of the chain was to extend the "reach" of the shot, allowing to tear more stuff up than a regular cannonball would.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[operagost]

I'm hoping that when that homeowner replaces the front door, they really upgrade. There's no way that cannonball should have had enough energy to bounce UP STAIRS and through a wall after hitting even any respectable metal or even solid wood door.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[Gilmoure]

Not to mention crossing the T behind an enemy ship and being able to shoot up it's relatively unprotected backside. That could be messy.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[fast turtle]

The main purpose of Chain Shot was to clear the decks of marines/sailors. You wanted to keep the ship as intact as possible in order to either take it as a prize and keep it in service or capture the cargo (Spanish Galleons - Treasure) unless it was an enemy armada (Straights of Trafalgar) where the objective is to sink/destroy the enemies naval strength (Iron Bottom Sound - PT 109) and Midway Island.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[Anonymous Coward]

and still having enough force to skip across the road and bounce off a roof? You'd think that friction would have stopped it. Wonder what the stairs looked like afterwards.

As far as I can tell by the description of the cannonball's path, they were trying to invent a real life flubber.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[SleazyRidr]

Chain shot damages sails primarily, you need grape shot to damage the opponent's crew. Yes, I do get all my historical knowledge from Sid Meier games, why do you ask?

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are thinking of grape shot, which is kind of like a shotgun. Attacking the masts and rigging was a valid strategy in the age of sail.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[ColdWetDog]

Chain shot damages sails primarily, you need grape shot to damage the opponent's crew. Yes, I do get all my historical knowledge from Sid Meier games, why do you ask?

Just depends on how you aim the cannon. A pair of 3 pound iron balls connected to two feet of iron chain moving a couple of hundred feet per second hitting your person will likely make your day go downhill very fast. But chain was primarily used to disable the ship. Disabling humans was a happy secondary effect.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[Nimey]

I believe those were technically known as "grazing shots", as in they'd graze the ground and keep on going through the infantry at a great rate of knots.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[Anonymous Coward]

This was part of the reason why the British fleet ruled the seas for so long. They could take out an enemy from a range so far the enemy could not shoot back.

...Except that you don't know what you're talking about, entirely. "Man of War"? A frigate might be carrying long nines, but nine pounders were relatively weak little things, and were pretty much spitballs compared to the armaments of the first through third rate ships of the line. Frigates were useful, and even awesome for what they were - but frigates did not make Britain a naval superpower.

As for range, so, uh, what about the numerous British ships equipped with carronades? Great guns were more common, to be sure, but ships in those days weren't armed in neat little well ordered classes like we see today.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[Anonymous Coward]

American buildings are only slightly sturdier than Japanese paper walls.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[Zomalaja]

a 6"(from the article) ball, if it is steel or iron, weighs around 30 lbs,at possibly several hundred feet per second, good luck finding a door that will have much effect.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[codegen]

I was wondering that too. If it had enough power to go through the wall, one would have thought it would go through the stairs, not bounce up.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[Colin Douglas Howell]

Most British (and American) Ships of the Line from the late 17th and 18th centuries had long range forward facing guns called "Long Nines". These were cast iron, "9 pound" guns usually 8 or 9 feet in length used as a "chase gun" firing from the bow or stern of the ship. On the larger ships such as the classic British "Man of War", often entire broadside batteries were "long nines".

Most warships in the age of sail used long guns as chase guns; they weren't unique to the British and Americans. And a long nine-pounder was only a modest-sized gun, like you might find on a frigate. The heart of the fleet, the ships of the line, would have 24-pounder or 32-pounder long guns for the broadside battery. (During the Napoleonic Wars at the end of the 18th century, short-barreled "carronades" became much more popular, replacing many of the smaller long guns.)

This was part of the reason why the British fleet ruled the seas for so long. They could take out an enemy from a range so far the enemy could not shoot back.

Actually, this is the exact opposite of the strategy preferred by the British. It's true that back in the days of the Spanish Armada in the late 16th century, they preferred to hit at a distance with longer-ranged guns, but this approach didn't work out as well as hoped; the guns' accuracy and energy fell off much too quickly with range. By the height of the age of sail in the late 18th century, British ships preferred to close to point-blank range (one reason why short-range carronades became so popular). The keys to their naval superiority were better seamanship (leading to more efficient and effective ship handling), aggressive tactics (take the fight to the enemy whenever you could), and better gunnery, which for the British meant that their gun crews could pump out more shots more accurately than their adversaries could. The British believed that in a close-range fight, their ships could be relied on to deal much more damage more quickly than their enemy, to the point that they could board or otherwise force the enemy to surrender, and that any damage their own ships suffered could be handled and patched by their well-trained crews. It was a belief often confirmed in practice.

In this style of fighting, the main role of chase guns was either to slow down a fleeing adversary enough to allow the British ship to close for a short-range battle, or if pursued by a clearly superior enemy, to slow him enough to allow you to escape.

The British kept to this approach until the development of accurate long-range rifled guns forced them to abandon it.

Re:Up stairs and through walls

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so this canonball did not have enough energy to blast through those stairs but instead went up those stairs and then suddenly, it did have enough energy to blast trough a wall? Explain that to me.

Don't worry guys!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

We were just investigating claims that the house was haunted.

By looking at the trajectory of the projectile between the entry hole in the house and the entry hole in the car, along with the complete lack of ballistic ectoplasm at the scene, I think we can conclude that myth to be busted, either by the scientific method or extreme prejudice, we aren't quite certain...

Re:Don't worry guys!

[Anonymous Coward]

Better call in the Ghost Hunters. They're science types. You know that because they're on SciFi.

Re:Don't worry guys!

[MightyMartian]

Egon, is that you?

Belleci/Imahara/Byron

[xollox]

It was definitely Belleci, Imahara and Byron. They were posting all sorts of pics of it on twitter (which have since been removed.)

Re:Belleci/Imahara/Byron

[elrous0]

I'm sensing that Tori won out over Grant in the "Is this safe?" debate on that one.

Re:Belleci/Imahara/Byron

[GameboyRMH]

Just checked the Google Caches. Nothing relevant in Grant's or Tori's, but when I try to load Kari's cache I get a 404...hmm...

Re:Belleci/Imahara/Byron

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. They had a line of 'balls' jokes going between eachother, referencing cannon balls. Grant also posted a pic of Kari standing next a cannon, and there we pictures of the cannon Tori built for a previous myth. It was definitely the 'build team' who did this.

-Simon

Re:Belleci/Imahara/Byron

[operagost]

try to load Kari's cache

Is that what the kids call it now?

Re:Belleci/Imahara/Byron

[Anonymous Coward]

I assumed this was the case given no other information. Those three tend to be careless and overzealous with their "experiments". It would also make sense that they twitted it all over the place without consulting the show producers, etc. first. That would be part of their careless nature.

Re:Belleci/Imahara/Byron

[slamb]

It was definitely the 'build team' who did this.

Hmm. My first impression is they did the right thing but had an unforeseeable freak accident, but on the other hand maybe it was another "What's on the other side of that berm?" moment. IMHO one should know what's on the other side of a berm before sending a car its way at 70 mph (even if there was supposed to be a braking system). There was a "don't try this at home; we're professionals"-style line later in that episode, and it was hard to take them seriously. It seemed to be a low moment in Mythbusters safety planning / professionalism...

Re:Belleci/Imahara/Byron

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sensing that Tori won out over Grant in the "Is this safe?" debate on that one.

I'm sensing that Kari "Token Tits" Byron won out because Grant was too busy staring at her Bust.

MythBusters

[Anonymous Coward]

Having run out of myths, those at MythBusters have to broaden their definition of "busting"...

Re:MythBusters

[JTsyo]

nah, they are creating new ones. Next season, they can try to recreate this incident.

Re:MythBusters

[tunapez]

Have they tested the myth that The Fonze jumped a shark yet?

Wow, impressive

[elrous0]

They shot a cannonball all the way from Alameda to Ireland?!? Holy shit, those guys are good!

Re:Wow, impressive

[JSBiff]

No, no, not Ireland - that's in WV. Just to Dublin, in CA.

Footage

[Anonymous Coward]

So... will we ever see the footage?
My bet is no... It was probably destroyed within 10 minutes of the incident.
On-site producer to camera-men: "Initiate liability protocol!"

Re:Footage

[elrous0]

Are you kidding? That's ratings GOLD, my friend. Hell, Discovery will probably promo the shit out of it.

The only way you wouldn't see footage like that was if someone got seriously hurt or killed. And even then they would probably do a very special "tribute" episode.

Re:Footage

[theonesandtwos]

Footage of what? The damage maybe, but unless it was planned there's not going to be any action footage. Probably the last thing caught on camera was it hitting the wall.

Re:Footage

[tompaulco]

Are you kidding? This is mythbusters. They probably had a camera mounted on the cannonball.

Re:Footage

[Jason Levine]

Probably not as they expected it to just impact with the water containers. Still, the path it took was quite impressive. From the article:

The cantaloupe-sized cannonball missed the water, tore through a cinder-block wall, skipped off a hillside and flew some 700 yards east, right into the Tassajara Creek neighborhood, where children were returning home from school at 4:15 p.m., authorities said.

There, the 6-inch projectile bounced in front of a home on quiet Cassata Place, ripped through the front door, raced up the stairs and blasted through a bedroom, where a man, woman and child slept through it all - only awakening because of plaster dust.

The ball wasn't done bouncing.

It exited the house, leaving a perfectly round hole in the stucco, crossed six-lane Tassajara Road, took out several tiles from the roof of a home on Bellevue Circle and finally slammed into the Gill family's beige Toyota Sienna minivan in a driveway on Springvale Drive.

Out of the cannon, through the cinder-block wall, off the hillside, flies 700 yards, bursts through a front door, races up the stairs, through a bedroom, exiting the house, across a six lane highway, off a roof and slams into a Toyota Sienna. Wow.

Re:Footage

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait for them to try and reinact this myth just to film it :D

But yeah it sounds so rube goldberg cartoonish like you'd expect from Wile E Coyote that if it wasn't the mythbusters who did it, I'd want them to do it.

Re:Footage

[JasoninKS]

The build team blew out several windows a season or two ago with an explosion that was bigger than expected. We still got to see that myth.

Re:Footage

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing but net!

Its not their problem

[LoRdTAW]

MythBusters isn't at fault here, the Alameda County Sheriff's Department bomb range is. Its their job to ensure the safety of any tests conducted on their site. Half the time you see sheriff whats-his-name preparing the explosives and one of the MB crew pushes the button to make boom. This will probably result in a few sensationalist headlines, insurance claims and the bomb range building bigger hills out of dirt. Case closed.

Re:Its not their problem

[Hatta]

It is their problem if the Alameda County Sheriff's Department gets cold feet (or sued) and doesn't want to do any more myth busting.

Re:Its not their problem

[GameboyRMH]

My guess is that the cannonball bounced off of one of the backing berms, the "hill" being spoken about in the news.

Re:Its not their problem

[MightyYar]

Right, because no town on earth would ever want the Mythbusters show produced locally...

Re:Its not their problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, what town wouldn't want to play host to a television show that routinely includes explosions in its production? I'm sure the town citizenry wouldn't mind since it's all done in the name of Science!

Re:Its not their problem

[J4]

But then how are they gonna get on TV?
I'm surprised they have time anyway what with Alameda's bomb problem and all.

Re:Its not their problem

[elrous0]

Ha, there are towns that would let you dump toxic waste into their rivers if you could give them some jobs and PR.

Re:Its not their problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter. If this can happen they probably should have been using another location anyway.

They will just find somewhere more remote to do this stuff.

Re:Its not their problem

[operagost]

Why not? Towns like mine happily change ordinances in the hope that companies will come in and build big mega-malls smack in the middle of supposed "low density residential"

Re:Its not their problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Strike them down and they will become more powerful than you ever can imagine . . . bankrupt cities all over the US will be loaning out their disposal facilities. Hell, Austin will probably let them do it at the courthouse . . .

Re:Its not their problem

[chaim79]

Platteville, WI

Active quarry right next to the movie theater... every once in a while they decide to help out with special effects. :)

Re:Its not their problem

[scharkalvin]

The Sheriff department doesn't have a bomb range just because of the Mythbusters. The fact that they have such a large facility a reasonable distance for most neighborhoods raises the question of what kind of shit they DO have to deal with that requires a bomb range. I bet a lot of THAT goes un reported in the news (and is a LOT more scary than what the Mythbusters do!).

Re:Its not their problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't really Alameda County's problem. The bomb range (and adjacent prison) were built back when there was nothing on that side of the freeway but fields and cows. The bomb range didn't move - they just plowed under the fields and built houses, roughly 10 years ago. *Why* anyone would build houses looking over a bombing range and a federal penitentiary is another question.

Given the quality of those houses, it is no wonder a cannonball went straight through. Heck, a decently hit softball would probably have done the same thing.

Re:Its not their problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think finding anither appropriate location to shoot that kind of stuff for one of cable TV's highest rated series is going to be a problem if the company/agency who owns it can get a plug every single time the show runs.

Re:Its not their problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work with Police Departments and lets just say that calling the media is not a requirement of police work. There is all KINDS of nasty stuff that happens that doesn't make the news.

Re:Its not their problem

[drsquare]

Yeah, what town wouldn't want some idiots of the TV shooting at them?

Re:Its not their problem

[MightyYar]

It doesn't have to make sense. People are not rational.

NIMBY's

[linguizic]

I guess the NIMBY's were right... ...but anyway, the Alameda County bomb range is in a fairly populated area. I'm amazed this hasn't happened before. Here's a map of the area. Point A is approximately where it landed, which is not far from the park and ride I used to use. The dark brown patches to the northwest of A is where the bomb range is.

Re:NIMBY's

[Zironic]

Well, in this case the bomb range was built first, and then they build houses around if afterwards. It takes NIMBY to quite another level when you build the backyard in question on top of what you don't want there.

Re:NIMBY's

[djdanlib]

Bunker rush!

Re:NIMBY's

[argStyopa]

You know, it's too bad there's not a nearby ocean that could be their "downrange" backstop...

Re:NIMBY's

[Anonymous Coward]

What's up with all those lakes with different colors?

Re:NIMBY's

[Nutria]

It takes NIMBY to quite another level when you build the backyard in question on top of what you don't want there.

Happened quite frequently in the 1970s and 1980s, with fresh suburbanites screaming about noise from airports that had existed for decades.

Re:NIMBY's

[Anonymous Coward]

Never underestimate the power of developers or other interested parties to buy up land that is "cheap for some reason", or persuade politicians to allow inappropriate land to be re-zoned for residential use, put houses on top of it, sell them, and then claim they are none the wiser when something goes horribly, horribly wrong. Read about Love Canal for example.

It's not NIMBY. It's more like "never should have been zoned residential in a radius around a bomb range where things can go wrong despite best efforts". It's stupid and irresponsible for the municipality to allow the building to have occurred.

Re:NIMBY's

[Anonymous Coward]

Happened quite frequently in the 1970s and 1980s, with fresh suburbanites screaming about noise from airports that had existed for decades.

So, airport exists in the 1950s. This airport gets occasional traffic from prop planes, mostly daylight hours when no one is around. Hence, people don't worry about the noise, and build homes near the airport.

Air travel booms in the 60s/70s/80s. Jet engines are introduced; noise is probably 10x - 100x what it was before. Wouldn't you complain?

Some idiot air travel company tried to do that in our neck of the woods recently. "Let's extend the runway for your minor use airport by 1000' - it's a safety issue for our pilots!" Bullshit. It's a way to bump the airport from "minor use" status to the next step up, which is cargo planes taking off and landing 24/7. I don't mind "minor use" - I like seeing the light aircraft taking off/landing/flying overhead, especially in the summer when they bring in the old WW2 aircraft - but I do mind cargo jets taking off/landing over my "suburbanite" home, because they are many orders of magnitude louder than all the other aircraft we've got going here right now.

Needless to say, that idiot air travel company was tarred & feathered & run out of town.

Re:NIMBY's

[GuruBuckaroo]

I suppose it could be worse. They could have shot through and into the jail just to the south of the bomb range and opened a hole for inmates.

Re:NIMBY's

[Sulphur]

You know, it's too bad there's not a nearby ocean that could be their "downrange" backstop...

There's one at Guantanamo.

Re:NIMBY's

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the old englishtown drag strip in jersey.. it was there first, people built houses in the area near it and yhen bitched about the noise. Now all racing must stop at 10pm. Ghey

Re:NIMBY's

[jittles]

That's not entirely true. My parents own a house near SJC. At the time that they bought the home, SJC was not SJC. It was a very small airport that only saw traffic from small single engine turbo props that were 4-6 seaters. Now they are flying 747s out of there. I'd say that is a huge difference in noise.

Re:NIMBY's

[Rary]

With the combined magic of Google Street View plus the images in the linked article, we can be more specific than that.

This image shows the cannonball's trajectory. Location #1 is the house that the cannonball went through, apparently entering through the front door and exiting through the rear wall. Location #2 is the driveway in which the cannonball came to a stop in a minivan.

Re:NIMBY's

[Rary]

And here's one that shows the complete trajectory from the bomb range.

Re:NIMBY's

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL

There's only one problem with your theory: it still happens even now. At major airports that were already huge jet hubs before the suburbanites thought it was an awesome idea to build houses in the flight path. We're having this fight out in Houston where Bush Intercontinental was already fucking huge and in the middle of nowhere, and now people want to live by it but don't want to put up with the noise. Hell, it's worse at Hobby which hasn't grown in decades because it's been swarmed by idiots who thought they wanted to live next door to an airport. You can see the wonderful sequence of events at http://historicaerials.com/ just go to wikipedia and get the lat/long (I doubt slashdot will let me paste the degree symbol but we'll see: 293844N 951644W ) zoom out a bit using the slider at the bottom, and use the dates on the left to watch the world fill in around the airport.

Re:NIMBY's

[Nutria]

That's not entirely true.

Reading comprehension FAIL. "Quite frequently" != "in every instance".

Anyway, you protest before the expansion not afterwards.

Re:NIMBY's

[SydShamino]

That doesn't stop people. I was on my city's planning and zoning commission. Plenty of the big issues we saw were due to adjacency issues, and in many cases the homes were newer than whatever business they were complaining about. (Usually the business was trying to rezone so as to start a new use and stop doing whatever people were complaining about, but people would still complain, and too often the rest of the commission and the city council would vote it down.)

Re:NIMBY's

[hitmark]

Been seeing it around a local wharf as well. Workers built close to have a short commute. But now they are complaining about the noise and such. The wharf has doubled or tripled in size since the houses where built tho...

Re:NIMBY's

[Gilmoure]

Same thing happens for outdoor and even indoor gun ranges. Gun range has been in use for decades, developer chops up land next to it, sells homes and then HOA breaks out the lawyers. Kinda' sucks.

Re:NIMBY's

[Nutria]

The wharf has doubled or tripled in size since the houses where built tho...

Most humans are short-sighted (that's why they are the workers not the leaders) and stupid (wanting prosperity w/o growth). I'm 5 miles from our city's airport, way out of the "noise zone", but an approach path comes right over our house. However, I don't complain because I know that's a "cost of prosperity".

Re:NIMBY's

[Anonymous Coward]

Why weren't they shooting this off at alameda, with the cannon aimed at the long stretch of open bay available. At least if they hit a boat, it will be much more appropriate.

Re:NIMBY's

[Anonymous Coward]

If they can squirm through a cantaloupe sized hole, they deserve freedom.

Re:NIMBY's

[nadaou]

It's a well tested and fine old scam.

Step 1) Buy the land super-cheap.
Step 2) Campaign to get rid of the public amenity next door.
Step 3) Depressed land value rebounds.
Step 4) ... Profit! (and everyone else suffers)

Re:NIMBY's

[kannibal_klown]

I think what the grandparent was talking about is something that used to happen a while back... there would be news stories about it a lot when I was a kid. There was a large "Urban Sprawl" between the 70s and 90s.

New suburban communities would start being built quite rapidly. Or the population in an area would boom because the prices were so cheap. However town would either be right near an airport or under a heavily trafficked route.

The new homeowners would then then petition the airport/FAA/etc to change their routes to move away from their new cheaply-bought homes. They'd be freaking out about how absurd it was... meanwhile the same planes had been going that route for years.

Re:NIMBY's

[jittles]

Reading comprehension FAIL. "Quite frequently" != "in every instance".

I'd be willing to bet that the exact same scenario played out more than just a handful of times. If he doesn't have numbers to back this up then I would say that it probably happens less often than he thinks.

Anyway, you protest before the expansion not afterwards.

That's a nice theory, really. The problem is that the airport is within the city limits of San Jose, but their planes conveniently take off over the city of Santa Clara. Guess who deals with the noise pollution? Why the city of Santa Clara, of course. And they were unable to stop the expansion of the airport. It took over 10 years of lawsuits for the airport and the city of San Jose to be forced to give any consideration to the people in the actual flight path of the airport.

Re:NIMBY's

[Nutria]

And all that time, the citizens of Santa Clara were benefiting from the economic growth which the airport aided.

Re:NIMBY's

[Nimey]

Did anybody ever blame the developers or the local governments for putting houses there?

It's kind of dumb to buy a house there, but I could see somebody not knowing just how loud an airliner can be.

Re:NIMBY's

[Anonymous Coward]

Pansy.

I lived 1/2 mile from a major international / military runway for three years. Anything that flew can (and often did) land and take off there. General aviation, puddle jumpers, big jumbo jets, cargo jets, all manner of helicopters, and of course fighter jets.

It was annoying for about a week. Then you just don't hear it anymore. The F-15s had a pretty regular training schedule that involved them peeling off the runway at 6 a.m. every Saturday morning with full afterburner. Sure startled me awake a few times in the beginning but eventually I could sleep through it no problem.

Re:NIMBY's

[bill_mcgonigle]

True. Fortunately NH has laws protecting ranges against that particular problem (though I imagine there was a reason those laws first got written).

Then again, it's NH protecting us against NH, so....

Re:NIMBY's

[bill_mcgonigle]

And all that time, the citizens of Santa Clara were benefiting from the economic growth which the airport aided.

This kind of thinking is why I prefer the private property people to the socialists.

Re:NIMBY's

[bill_mcgonigle]

It takes NIMBY to quite another level when you build the backyard in question on top of what you don't want there.

It happens all the time with agriculture in some States. Housing development goes up next to that 'quaint' farm, then the manure spreaders come out in the spring.

The city people go apeshit (or is that cowshit?) and harrass the farmer with the government.

Or, my favorite, they build housing developments next to ecosystems that need occasional burns for reproduction or litter control but the new neighbors would never put up with that kind of smoke! Eventually, a raging forest fire breaks out instead and takes out the housing development.

OK, maybe that's just equilibrium seeking.

Re:NIMBY's

[anyGould]

OK, I think they need to start cutting back on the gunpowder - that thing got some serious airtime...

Re:NIMBY's

[Garybaldy]

Funny you mention the developers. Many airports put up signs on undeveloped land warning of the high noise. Only to have the signs mysteriously disappear when the homes built on said land were put up for sale.

Re:NIMBY's

[Anonymous Coward]

You think that's bad? Even worse is when people build houses in the shadows of giant water towers and then complain when the water tower continues to do nothing but sit there and obstruct their view.

Re:NIMBY's

[anyGould]

And all that time, the citizens of Santa Clara were benefiting from the economic growth which the airport aided.

How you figure? The airport isn't on their land, so they're not getting any taxes. There's no guarantee that any revenue at all is making it into Santa Clara.

Re:NIMBY's

[Electricity Likes Me]

Happens with Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney. People bought cheap houses in the adjacent suburb, didn't know the reactor was there and are now opposing it's existence (it's a big supplier of radioisotopes for medicine in Oceania and South East Asia).

Re:NIMBY's

[Nutria]

Spoken like a true leftist/liberal/socialist/Green/whatever: all concerned about secondary and tertiary impacts on snail darters and tree frogs, but can't think holistically about business.

The airport doesn't just support businesses in San Jose. People who work for Santa Clara businesses are, amazingly, allowed to fly in/out of the SJ airport.

And... not everyone who works in SJ lives in SJ. Some live in Santa Clara. The people who do so buy houses, cars, groceries, etc, etc, so paying property, income and sales taxes.

Thus, a busy SJ Airport benefits SC.

Re:NIMBY's

[DamienNightbane]

I used to live in the flight path of McChord AFB in Tacoma, WA. Maybe two or three miles from the runway at most. If I can put up with C-17s leaving skid marks on my roof all day erry day, nobody should be able to complain about airport noise.

Re:NIMBY's

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a real fucking cannon in the pictures floating around. Why would it be fired that near to a populated area, directly aimed towards the area? Cannons that size were used to strike targets a deal further away during their prime.

Re:NIMBY's

[Anonymous Coward]

747s do not regularly land at SJC. But your point is otherwise taken.

Re:NIMBY's

[drinkypoo]

It's not called NIMBY, you're just being deluged by jokers who don't understand English, but understand that people have a visceral reaction to people saying "NIMBY". The proper word is gentrification. My least-favorite example is the closing down of the Trocadero Transfer Club at (near) 4th and Bryant in SF. Formerly a warehouse district, moved into by a bunch of jackholes who moved there because it was cheap and had charm and then ruined all the charm. Santa Cruz has become pretty gentrified too, went from having a head shop in the middle of the mall and hippie drum circles going on to the head shop down at the end of the mall by the Mexican restaurant whose trash smells like dead babies and feces.

Re:NIMBY's

[anyGould]

Obvious rebuttal: by that logic, I can happily build my toxic waste facility next to your house, since you'll concentrate on the big picture of all the business the neighborhood will generate, rather than the sludge that's creeping toward your kid's swingset.

Also obvious: these sorts of projects are always big on community benefit when we're talking about costs (and noise is a cost), but when it comes time to divvy up the actual physical moolah, I bet that airport ain't sharing...

Re:NIMBY's

[Nutria]

Except when the toxic waste facility exists before the neighborhood.

Re:NIMBY's

[WorBlux]

Simple solution, buy an easement or covenant on the land while its cheap so they can't sue. At least then when encroachment is inevitable the owner of the gun range will be able to take a large cut.

Re:NIMBY's

[drsquare]

Areas near busy airports are usually pretty poor. No-one who can afford to lives there, so the area turns into a slum.

Re:NIMBY's

[hitmark]

I would not say that most leaders have that much more of a foresight. Still, the "cost of prosperity" can be to high. Problem is that there is no set water mark for what, and so we are back at square one.

Re:NIMBY's

[Nutria]

I would not say that most leaders have that much more of a foresight.

Politicians don't. Leaders do. Otherwise, they don't know where they want to lead the followers to.

Re:NIMBY's

[hitmark]

Why am i reminded of "There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader."?

Re:NIMBY's

[Nutria]

I don't know. Sounds very Machiavellian: the leader can't just always do what he wants; however, if all he does is follow, he won't be leader for long.

What I do know is that most (certainly not all) people, whether they admit it or not, are followers.

I see humanity in a Venn Diagram with 3 sets of people: Leaders, Followers and Free Thinkers. The set of Followers is by far the largest, but they all overlap to some degree or another.

Re:NIMBY's

[Anonymous Coward]

Think that one is bad? Try Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor that was built back in the 50s in a large bushland area outside Sydney. Slowly but steadily the suburbs encroached closer and closer. Cue the populace realising that Australia does have a nuclear reactor and they built a house within minutes drive from it. Well, they are still trying to get it shut down even though they built a new reactor there back in 2006...

WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE TERRORIST!

Re:NIMBY's

[kannibal_klown]

Did anybody ever blame the developers or the local governments for putting houses there?

It's kind of dumb to buy a house there, but I could see somebody not knowing just how loud an airliner can be.

I recall seeing one on the news... the town was built pretty much as close as you can get to an airport. Some new home-owners were trying to get the airport to close earlier / turn of lights / be quieter.

Even as young as I was, I recall thinking "What the heck, why did you by that house anyway."

Sure, some situations where you're 40 miles from an airport and not knowing that you're under a pathway is one thing...

But most of what I was hearing was like they moved within 1-2 miles of the flippin' airport (if not as close-as-possible) and then tried to get teh airport to close for business earlier, turn of lights at night (seriously), close it down entirely, etc.

It's like buying the house across the street from the fire station and whining about being woken up by the fire truck and asking them to close down / etc.

Unintended Consequences.

[VortexCortex]

It is not clear whether Savage/Hyneman or Belleci/Imahara/Byron were conducting the experiment.

They can't tell who's who anymore? Sounds like the Freaky Friday myth is CONFIRMED!

What is wrong with journalism.

[will_die]

Here they have a story about a cannon ball destroing a car, or just damaging it, and knocking a hole in the house and they think that people want to see 2 pictures of the police telling the reports that a cannon ball knocked a hole in the house.
Who really cares about the police show us more pictures of the hole and the vehicle.

Re:What is wrong with journalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this enough to satisfy your need to feed off of the misfortune of others?

Re:What is wrong with journalism.

[elrous0]

Misfortune my ass. They'll be telling that story for the rest of their lives. Top THAT at a bar.

"I once caught a huge bass."

"I once banged a really hot girl."

"Yeah, well I once had a cannonball shot through my house by the Mythbusters."

Re:What is wrong with journalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

You once banged a huge ass on Mythbusters on a Cannonball run?

Interesting captcha: probable.

Re:What is wrong with journalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well, I was the one who was actually shooting that cannon ball! Now what, biatch?" ^^

Re:What is wrong with journalism.

[need4mospd]

That wasn't a cannonball. That was one of my testicles.

Re:What is wrong with journalism.

[ColdWetDog]

That wasn't a cannonball. That was one of my testicles.

Ouch! My Balls!

like the jfk magic bullet

[Anonymous Coward]

that thing has a lot of power.

Kids!

[SEWilco]

Don't try this at your bomb range!

Best. Episode. Ever.

[Plastic Pencil]

At least until they "accidentally" create a singularity that destroys half a state, and permanently alters the rules of our relative space-time.

Re:Best. Episode. Ever.

[tnk1]

At least until they "accidentally" create a singularity that destroys half a state, and permanently alters the rules of our relative space-time.

And today, a Very Special Mythbusters at the Large Hadron Collider!

Myth: Creating Strange Matter and allowing it to escape containment could cause the Earth to be completely converted to Strange Matter and end life as we know it!

Will it make a boom? Let's find out!

Coming soon December 12, 2012!

Re:Best. Episode. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least until they "accidentally" create a singularity that destroys half a state, and permanently alters the rules of our relative space-time.

An episode next season will test the theory that this has already happened.

Re:Best. Episode. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh... I might actually get my cable TV service back to see that one!

Captcha is particle... is it just me or does the captcha system on here seem to know what we're talking about?!?

Re:Best. Episode. Ever.

[Plastic Pencil]

And today, a Very Special Mythbusters at the Large Hadron Collider!
Myth: Creating Strange Matter and allowing it to escape containment could cause the Earth to be completely converted to Strange Matter and end life as we know it!
Will it make a boom? Let's find out!
Coming soon December 12, 2012!

With Special Guest Host: Gordon Freeman!

Insurance?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to hear the call the the car insurance person...

Hello... my car was hit by a cannonball. Can you come out at look at it?

A what?

A cannonball - you know, like what a cannon shoots.

Where is the car?

At my house.

So how did it get hit by a cannonball?

I have no idea. Look - I just need to get my car fixed or replaced please...

Is this a joke?

Sigh...

Re:Insurance?

[kenzal]

They could always sell the rights to Allstate for use in their Mayhem ad campaign: "I'm a cannonball"

Re:Insurance?

[king neckbeard]

Then the insurance company informs them that they didn't get pirate coverage.

Re:Insurance?

[tompaulco]

If my car is damaged by someone else, i don't get my insurance company involved at all. The less they know, they less likely they will raise your rates. I would only get my insurance company involved if the other party refused to pay for the damage.

So what was the myth?

[phoenix_V]

Next time on MythBusters, were cannons really less accurate then rifled artillery? We put it to test... Oops!!!

Not On My Mini Van!

[Thud457]

Wikimapia says the bomb range is here

Re:Not On My Mini Van!

[headhot]

If thats the case the house was less then 1/4 mi away. Plausible.

Re:Not On My Mini Van!

[linguizic]

Wow, ok. That's much closer than I thought.

Re:Not On My Mini Van!

[operagost]

I've seen what's left of the van. CONFIRMED

OK, here is my myth submission to Mythbusters

[negrace]

OK, here is my myth submission to Mythbusters There is an ancient myth that Chinese built a giant wall many thousands of kilometers long. Could you please test this and see if you could replicate the myth? This should keep them busy for another 1000 or so seasons.

Re:OK, here is my myth submission to Mythbusters

[ledow]

Be careful.

First they'll build a scale model 6" high and do some "math". Then they'l knock up a 6-foot section of a life size wall and call it plausible. They'll they "upscale" things and end up building a wall around the equator and blowing it up.

So It isn't a TV Show Myth?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was hoping they were doing TV show myths and they busted the TV show House. There is so much wrong with that show, but damn I like Hugh Laurie.

Re:So It isn't a TV Show Myth?

[Alomex]

There is so much wrong with that show,

Here's a show that quite successfully introduces a mostly scientifically illiterate public to the concept of experimental verification and controls, as well as to the fun and excitement of scientific exploration and all you can do is bitch about some details which most likely were taken care off camera?

You wouldn't be called Sheldon by any chance would you?

Re:So It isn't a TV Show Myth?

[Anonymous Coward]

He was making a joke, and the show he was referring to was House M.D. The wrongs he was referring to were the farfetched medical aspects of House M.D.

You wouldn't be called an obtuse, moronic, nerd by any chance, would you?

I read the comment once and parsed what he meant. I had to read your comment twice to understand what the fuck you were going on about. This is why I no longer have an account here. I enjoy some of the comments, and that's why I still read this site. Stupid asses like yourself have made me and many others not want to comment here.

Now that I read your idiocy a third time, I see that you took a part of one sentence out of context and wrote your own dumbassery about it. You knew damn well what you were doing and just wanted to be an ass. I'm glad I don't work in IT anymore with fucking losers like you.

And while I'm waiting for my posting timeout to let me post, I read this post by you:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2556056&cid=38256560

That's a switch you linked to, you fucking moron. Cisco Catalysts are switches. I've been in medium sized datacenters with racks of these things. They may be used by ISPs, but they are certainly not marketed for that.

This will help you:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps679/products_data_sheet09186a0080092605.html

You just used Google Images and found the picture of the biggest and neatest looking Cisco device you could find and linked to that in an attempt to (ignorantly) call out another poster. Your posting history is full of ignorance like this. The only thing I like about you is that you're not an out-of-touch linux-loving freetard.

Re:So It isn't a TV Show Myth?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I no longer have an account here.

You sound like a total a$$hole. Good riddance. Get going already.

sick sad world

[Thud457]

Is this enough to satisfy your need to feed off of the misfortune of others?

If not, you can read about : Massive Japanese crash claims eight Ferraris, three Benzes, and a Lamborghini.
And if that's not enough for ya, you can read about the pretty young woman who's not so pretty any more after walking into a active airplane propeller.

How would the experiment on camera work?

[tepples]

Start with Medical Reviews of House M.D. , pick a few egregious ones, and request them. But does the experiment-on-camera format of Mythbusters even lend itself to medical myths?

Holy Crap!

[Lumpy]

They shot a cannon ball from California all the way to Ireland? I cant not WAIT to see that episode!

Re:Holy Crap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only to but through!

Jamie: I got big BOOM!

In a related story

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Army announces they have acquired a new 'bunker buster' field artillery piece.

Cool

[pavon]

Hopefully that will mean we get more myth busting in our backyard.

Myth Busted

[JoeRobe]

I'd like to see them try to replicate the "myth" that a cannonball that is initially fired at a bunch of water can wind up skipping off a hill, go through a house 700 yards away, go through 6 lanes of traffic and come to rest in a car.

They probably won't be able to do it again and declare it busted.

Re:Myth Busted

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see them try to replicate the "myth" that a cannonball that is initially fired at a bunch of water can wind up skipping off a hill, go through a house 700 yards away, go through 6 lanes of traffic and come to rest in a car.

They probably won't be able to do it again and declare it busted.

I was going to go for "Is it true it's impossible to get insurance twice to shoot a cannon at the Alameda bomb range?" myth...

What they should say

[Anonymous Coward]

"Remember, don't try this at home. We have what you call, 'liability insurance.'"

Re:What they should say

[Anonymous Coward]

They should definitely change the intro to the show to that for the episode this airs on. That would be hilarious!

Captcha = demolish...LOL

Yellow Journalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have my doubts about all of the details... Tassajara Road is a two lane road, not a "six-lane highway"

Shhhhh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey man, there's no need to be mentioning names.

I think we know who is responsible for this

[jayhawk88]

Jamie like big boom.

For a second there...

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I thought they conclusively demonstrated that it's plausible if not outright confirmed most of the time, it actually IS Lupus.

never mind.

Re:For a second there...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought they conclusively demonstrated that it's plausible if not outright confirmed most of the time, it actually IS Lupus.

never mind.

This is EXACTLY what I thought they did, too.

Was I the only one that read this and thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

That they were going to fact check House the TV show?

"cantaloupe-sized cannonball"?

[G3ckoG33k]

"The cantaloupe-sized cannonball missed the water, tore through a cinder-block wall, skipped off a hillside and flew some 700 yards east, right into the Tassajara Creek neighborhood, where children were returning home from school at 4:15 p.m., authorities said."

WTF is a cantaloupe?!

Ok, Google says melon...

Why not write that. Idiots. First I thought it was an island, about one tenth the size of Wales...

Re:"cantaloupe-sized cannonball"?

[Jeng]

The family that cantaloupes are part of also includes pumpkins, pumpkins can weigh in excess of a ton. It makes sense to compare to a specific melon rather than all of them due to variety.

Just because you have no fucking idea of what something is doesn't mean it is the fault of the person who wrote the summary, it is the fault of the person who doesn't know what something is.

This is a website devoted to news for nerds, nerd up motherfucker.

Re:"cantaloupe-sized cannonball"?

[RKThoadan]

Melon covers a number of fruits in range of sizes. Considering they're trying to give a size comparison that's not terribly useful. I didn't realize they would be considered uncommon and I'm guessing the majority of the readership (remember, it's a local paper) would be quite familiar with the term.

Re:"cantaloupe-sized cannonball"?

[Lifyre]

Because there are many different sizes of melon and since it is a cantaloupe and you're an idiot we'll call it a cantaloupe since North American Cantaloupe is really too long...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantaloupe

Re:"cantaloupe-sized cannonball"?

[JazzLad]

What sad, sad place do you live in to not know the yummy-ness that is cantaloupe? Besides, If they wrote melon how would I know if they meant melon, melon, melon or melon?

Re:"cantaloupe-sized cannonball"?

[Silfax]

Because there are many different sizes of melon and since it is a cantaloupe and you're an idiot we'll call it a cantaloupe since North American Cantaloupe is really too long

And cantaloupes come in a large range of sizes from about a pound to around 10 pounds (possibly bigger, the biggest I ever saw was around 10 pounds) Comparison to something that is that variable in size is sort of useless, just give the actual (or even close) dimensions.

Re:"cantaloupe-sized cannonball"?

[bryan1945]

"nerd up motherfucker."

You are my hero of the day.

Re:"cantaloupe-sized cannonball"?

[Lifyre]

Alright I deserved that.... But...

There, the 6-inch projectile bounced in front of a home on quiet Cassata Place,

RTFS if you wanted details...

Video Footage of the damage

[Anonymous Coward]

You can seen video of the damage here: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/12/06/cannonball-hits-dublin-home-during-mythbusters-stunt/

Video and Pics

[dlhm]

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/12/06/tv-experiment-goes-awry-sends-cannonball-rocketing-through-homes/

Good old Street View

[itachi0x0]

Looks like you can see the minivan on Google street view

I think it was Belleci/Imahara/Byron

[nosaj72]

Kari had posted some pics of Tony Belleci with a cannon on her twitter yesterday, so I'm guessing it was that group. Those pictures have been removed from her twitter now. I wonder why?

Some people will do anything to get on TV ...

[Lazy Jones]

(have their audience figures dropped recently?)

What could possibly go wrong?

[amoeba1911]

It's only a matter of time until one of those goofballs ends up really hurting someone or themselves. They're professional at making Hollywood effects for movies and ads, but that's about it. Adam getting his lip sucked into a running vacuum cleaner motor, burning his eyebrows off, etc etc isn't confidence inspiring.

They remind me a bit of Humphry Davy a little bit, they have the same philosophy of "look at what happens when I combine this with that". The only difference is Humphry was clowning around at the cutting edge of science and discovery, while Adam&Jamie are just clowning around.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[gtall]

I find your analysis thought provoking and informative. Can I subscribe to your newsletter?

LOL, WUT?

[Thud457]

I thought they were shooting a cannon ball.

Re:LOL, WUT?

[drinkypoo]

I thought they were shooting a house and a people carrier.

Yep... or ....

[King_TJ]

like happened where I live, the Air National Guard set up shop there, sharing the runways with the commercial aircraft. So all of a sudden, you get a loud whoosh of F-15 fighter jets doing aerial maneuvers overhead on Sundays, rattling all of your windows to the point where some of them crack.

Through the Wall ...

[Aaron_Pike]

Through the wall, off the hillside, through the house, into the minivan, nothing but net.

Re:Through the Wall ...

[Quiet_Desperation]

More like everything *but* net.

Keep the wreckage!

[KingSkippus]

Frankly, I would consider it an honor to have my minivan crushed by a Mythbusters experiment.

I thought this as well. I'd be tempted to turn down the insurance settlement and just keep the wreckage, especially if you can keep the cannonball, too. You could probably get a LOT of money for it at auction from a fan who wants the famous Mythbusters experiment that went horribly wrong!

Re:Keep the wreckage!

[i_b_don]

They'll give you the money... weather or not you choose to fix your minivan is up to you. Seriously, if you are a good sport about this they'll easily throw in extra. You can always claim all sorts of crap like emotional destress and try to squeeze more money out of them... but if it were me, I'd take the money, plus a little, and get some extra perks on the show. Meet the hosts, that type of thing.

d

Re:Keep the wreckage!

[drinkypoo]

They'll give you the money... weather or not you choose to fix your minivan is up to you.

They don't give you the money, your insurance company handles the whole thing, and how much money they get out of the other party's insurance company has nothing whatsoever to do with how much money you get. Unless, of course, your insurance company doesn't cover your car being shot by a mortar, in which case you just have to fall back to the lawsuit. But if they DO cover such an instance, then you've already signed away any rights to be involved if they don't want you to be. You could still file suit in civil court for damages due to the event, anything not covered by your insurance company, like destroyed CDs.

Re:Keep the wreckage!

[elrous0]

Just give me Kari. Keep the money.

Nobody hurt, good

[Peter Simpson]

Now the tone can be set by Mythbusters' actions. The right thing to do, is first, to repair the damage. Not pay for it, not file an insurance claim, but send a first class home repair crew over to make the house better than it was before. Deliver a better minivan to their driveway tonight. Next, in person apologies (and a night out or free passes to a Mythbusters shoot, their choice) by those involved, and Adam and Jamie. Explain carefully what your plans are to prevent anything like this from ever happening again. Do it fast, do it right and you come out looking good. Get the lawyers and insurance companies involved and ask the family to sign settlements and it all goes to heck in a handbasket.

Re:Nobody hurt, good

[__aajfby9338]

Agreed! If I recall correctly, they did something like this a number of years ago when a surprisingly-large explosion busted a bunch of windows in a nearby town. I hope that this accident will be handled similarly.

Re:Nobody hurt, good

[brusk]

Bad plan. If you don't get the lawyers involved and ask the people involved to sign a waiver, your "gift" will count for nothing: they can say "thanks for the new minivan" and still sue you for the loss of the old one (and in court the act of doing all this so quickly might be taken as a sign of guilt). Sometimes you do need to call in the lawyers and insurance companies, and this is one of those times. It would probably also be a no-no not to inform your insurer about an event like this, since when your policy is up for renewal it does not look good to have hidden a previous accident.

Re:Nobody hurt, good

[pclminion]

I once sold a car to somebody, she had it checked out thoroughly and everything was fine, then two weeks later the engine seized. The buyer called me distraught, and part of me wanted to throw down $300 for a new water pump (she had many thousands of dollar in repairs she was looking at), but I was smart enough to realize that if I did that, I would be admitting fault for selling her a car with some kind of problem, so I had to send her packing. I admit no responsibility for it. It was an old car. Old cars can have problems which are hard to detect. She did her due diligence, and I did mine. But sympathizing with her and trying to help her out even in a token way financially, would have been legally very questionable.

In most states, medical doctors are unable to say "I'm sorry" if a medical procedure goes wrong, even just to express sympathy for a family's loss. It's considered an admission of guilt. Admitting guilt will not make your insurance company happy. At all.

Re:Nobody hurt, good

[BranMan]

You mean, getting Keri pregnant so she can go apologize - as "no one can be mad at a pregnant woman"? Sounds like a plan.

Re:Nobody hurt, good

[BranMan]

Huh? They shot a CANNON BALL through a minivan! There is no question of guilt (if by guilt you mean responsibility) - no one sane would hold a question in their minds for two seconds. It wasn't intentional, by any means, but that DOES NOT matter. Man up, immediately. Apologize and try to make it right, immediately. That is their only good option. Lawyering-up will only make it worse. The only reason anyone would have for suing is if you didn't try to make it right, immediately.

Re:Nobody hurt, good

[Anonymous Coward]

You think the insurer doesn't know?

Re:Nobody hurt, good

[anyGould]

I would suspect things may already be cleaned up. (My memory was that those broken windows were fixed in a matter of hours, not days).

As for the lawyers, you think they don't have disclaimers pre-printed in large pads for these guys?

Re:Nobody hurt, good

[__aajfby9338]

Wow, I never thought I'd actually encounter somebody more cynical than I am! :-)

Re:Nobody hurt, good

[DinDaddy]

They discussed that on a recent episode. They sent Kari, who was pregnant at the time, around to apologize, figuring people wouldn't be as mad at a pregnant woman.

Re:Nobody hurt, good

[Carnildo]

Bad plan. If you don't get the lawyers involved and ask the people involved to sign a waiver, your "gift" will count for nothing: they can say "thanks for the new minivan" and still sue you for the loss of the old one (and in court the act of doing all this so quickly might be taken as a sign of guilt).

You're thinking like a lawyer here. An ordinary person will see the apology and new minivan as a sincere attempt to make things right, and will respond by deciding not to sue.

Re:Nobody hurt, good

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to live in this world anymore.

Re:Nobody hurt, good

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it funny how this kind of accident a mere 20 years ago would have simply meant that the parties who had their property damaged compensated and the matter would have been over and done with.

But now days everyone thinks they need a lottery winning for a paper cut.

Isn't it obvious to anyone in society today that you are all acting like a bunch of belligerent, selfish and holier than thou stuck up British?

Whats next, severe whippings for stealing a loaf of bread? Hangings for stealing a car? Severe beatings for being homeless?

Grow the fuck up America seriously and get your balls out of the vice of the British empire.

~ Blackbeard The Pirate

Re:Nobody hurt, good

[EdIII]

does not look good to have hidden a previous accident

You say hide like the dog horked up on the carpet and you moved the couch.

This event "touched" a few more lives and physical objects than that.

Re:Nobody hurt, good

[Anonymous Coward]

Your plan is what a good lawyer would do. The GP's plan is what a good person would do.

Re:Nobody hurt, good

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a great American hobby that doesn't happen to the same degree in other parts of the world. This hobby is called sue thy neighbour.

Re:Nobody hurt, good

[Peter Simpson]

Ya know, I'm sure they did send the lawyers around, but *after* Adam and Jamie apologised, and after arrangements were made to repair the damage. It's a lot easier to get someone to sign a waiver *after* you've apologised and made them whole again (and they feel like you're not just trying to get them to let you off the hook) Interesting that they sent Adam and Jamie over. Good move. Somebody gets it.

Re:Nobody hurt, good

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad plan. If you don't get the lawyers involved and ask the people involved to sign a waiver, your "gift" will count for nothing: they can say "thanks for the new minivan" and still sue you for the loss of the old one (and in court the act of doing all this so quickly might be taken as a sign of guilt).

You know how I can tell YANAL?

Sometimes you do need to call in the lawyers and insurance companies, and this is one of those times. It would probably also be a no-no not to inform your insurer about an event like this, since when your policy is up for renewal it does not look good to have hidden a previous accident.

This, however, is good thinking.

This never happened, because ...

[Anonymous Coward]

He rejects your reality and substitute his own!

Not clear?

[wolrahnaes]

It is not clear whether Savage/Hyneman or Belleci/Imahara/Byron were conducting the experiment.

This was a Build Team myth.

Grant and Kari were both tweeting pictures of the cannon from the site yesterday which were getting RTs from the Mythbusters and Discovery accounts. Of course all of those are gone now, but even a fraction of a second of research would have answered this question.

Kinda like an operating room

[Alsee]

What do an operating room and a bomb range have in common?

Places you never want to hear someone say "Oops".

-

cheap rent

[buback]

Also, night shift workers are probably more likely to live in the cheaper part of town. Say, like next to a bomb range.

6 Lanes... or 4?

[RPGillespie]

Funny how little details like that can make a story seem more sensational: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/12/mythbusters-cannonball.html

Obvious gap

[damn_registrars]

The fact that reportedly a 6-inch cannonball fired from a homemade cannon busts through a cinder-block wall, then bounces off a hillside, then flies 700 yards and bounces again, then goes through a front door, bounces up a stairway and into a bedroom where it proceeds to bust through a stucco wall, and after all that, still had enough energy to fly over to a neighboring house hitting its roof and destroying a few roof tiles, crosses a six lane highway (still in the air, presumably) over into another neighborhood and crashes into a parked minivan shattering its windshield and destroying its dashboard

Actually, the part that discredited it for me was that the course of the ball didn't end in "nothing but net". Which clearly means it was faked, just like the JFK magic bullet and the moon landing.

well it looks like.

[Truekaiser]

they busted the myth that people will wake up due to loud noises.

"There, the 6-inch projectile bounced in front of a home on quiet Cassata Place, ripped through the front door, raced up the stairs and blasted through a bedroom, where a man, woman and child slept through it all - only awakening because of plaster dust."

Pictures from the bomb range!

[Jon.Laslow]

Although they've since been taken down, Kari, Tory, and Grant tweeted pictures from the bomb range yesterday, including said canons. Reproduced on my blog: http://laslow.net/2011/12/07/mythbusters-and-damage-control/

Re:Pictures from the bomb range!

[kodiaktau]

There was a better video coverage from Channel 7 too.

Re:Pictures from the bomb range!

[scharkalvin]

One of those pictures was a home made cannon that was on the show before. The 'real' cannon might have been one named 'Moses' that has also been on the show before, this one is owned by a local collector. They also once made a cannon out of ducktape and another one out of a tree.

Re:Pictures from the bomb range!

[Anonymous Coward]

canon != cannon

Re:Pictures from the bomb range!

[gangien]

I wondered why the links i clicked on werent' working.. lol

Re:Pictures from the bomb range!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're alright, buddy.

Re:Pictures from the bomb range!

[Jon.Laslow]

Yes, my spell-check apparently doesn't cannons. Fixed in the posting on site, as well.

...and as things were wrapping up

[Anonymous Coward]

Adam: "Busted!"
Jamie: "Busted."
Kari: "Totally busted"
Homeowner: "Yep, busted"
Car owner: "Completely busted"
Police officer: "But totally awesome!"

Re:...and as things were wrapping up

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawyer: F'cking A!

Skipping cannon balls

[toxonix]

Can a cannon ball be skipped over water like a stone? I'm gonna say this myth is confirmed.

thankfully no one was hurt

[webdragon]

Accidents can and sometimes do happen, I am just glad no one was injured. But i am curious to which myth they were working on..

Re:thankfully no one was hurt

[BranMan]

This is just a guess, but may be related to the myth they tested about avoiding gunfire by going underwater. They found that even .50 cal sniper rifle fire could not penetrate more than 3 feet of water. I'm hoping someone wrote in to see if this were scaled up - can water defeat bigger guns / artillery? Only way I can think firing a cannon at water makes any sense.

When life shoots lemons through your house...

[__aajfby9338]

...make lemonade!

If it was my house that got aerated by the Mythbusters cannon, I would propose to the network that appropriate restitution would consist of them tearing down my old house and building me a new cannonball-resistant one. If they want to turn that into a 2-hour episode investigating the myth of "Can you build a cannonball-resistant house?", and make themselves a zillion dollars on ad revenue, then that's just gravy. They get their zillion dollars, I get my rhino-lined concrete house, and everybody wins!

while there likely wont be

[nimbius]

any criminal charges, you can be sure the guys producing mythbusters will see lawsuits from a car insurance company, and a homeowners insurance group assuming the insurance covers siege by cannon fire. depending on the neighbourhood there may also be a lawsuit from the homeowners association

They were warned.

[Jeng]

Warning: Pregnant women, the elderly, and children under 10 should avoid prolonged exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
        Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds.
        Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
        Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
        Discontinue use of Happy Fun Ball if any of the following occurs:
                itching
                vertigo
                dizziness
                tingling in extremities
                loss of balance or coordination
                slurred speech
                temporary blindness
                profuse sweating
                heart palpitations
        If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelter and cover head.
        Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types of skin.
        When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be returned to its special container and kept under refrigeration. Failure to do so relieves the makers of Happy Fun Ball, Wacky Products Incorporated, and its parent company, Global Chemical Unlimited, of any and all liability.
        Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an unknown glowing substance which fell to Earth, presumably from outer space.
        Happy Fun Ball has been shipped to our troops in Saudi Arabia and is also being dropped by our warplanes on Iraq.
        Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
        Happy Fun Ball comes with a lifetime guarantee.

Ballistics at a bomb range?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought they tested cannons at the airstrip at the old Alameda naval station.

Then again, overshooting there could send a boat in the bay down to Davey Jones' Locker, so maybe they should go to their Mojave Desert location next time they want to mess with cannons.

Watch out when TK&G test myths!

[tipo159]

Tory, Kari and Grant seem to play fast and loose when it comes to safety.

Remember when they launched the car at 70 mph (I think, under a semi trailer to make the car a convertible), but neglected to set-up anything to catch the car after it went under the trailer and it ended up getting launched outside of the test area.

Re:Watch out when TK&G test myths!

[JasoninKS]

Actually, that one was at a facility where they purposely do that sort of thing. There's a braking system, it happened to fail on that one attempt. MB have crashed other cars there with no issues. So, while it happened while the build team was there, it wasn't their fault.

Whatever you do...

[somejeff]

Don't try this at home.

Call Mythbusters, they'll come to you home and do it for you!

Re:Near ACFD Rocks?

[Rashdot]

They could have written "Mythbusters rock":

http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=q&source=s_q&geocode=&q=37.724692,-121.880527&sll=52.469397,5.509644&sspn=6.621128,16.358643&vpsrc=6&ie=UTF8&ll=37.724772,-121.880504&spn=0.001484,0.001997&t=h&z=20/

(you have to zoom in to see it)

misread headline

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously thought that this article was going to be about them pointing out factual inaccuracies in the show "House".

Re:misread headline

[Kojow777]

I seriously thought that this article was going to be about them pointing out factual inaccuracies in the show "House".

I actually thought the same at first. :)

Obviously, this is just a myth

[Kojow777]

...that needs to be busted.

Not sure if...

[Reasonable Facsimile]

... really an accident, or merely a publicity stunt.

A Myth of Their Own

[redelm]

... wouldn't they Bust it? Given enough chances, even the improbable happens.

Re:A Myth of Their Own

[GodfatherofSoul]

I know where you're going with this, and "no" she's never going to go out with you.

Map of the area from someone that works there

[WankerWeasel]

Area map. http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9953/69353655.jpg Map of the sheriff's office, military base, bomb range and house that got hit. http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=214849410118080227465.0004b382bf3f98cc75a8d&msa=0&ll=37.728095,-121.884813&spn=0.0501,0.086002

As Mr. Savage would put it

[dostojevski78]

I reject your risk analysis and substitute my own!

Now did you imaging him

[publiclurker]

saying it in his one "bad" raspy pirate voice?

Re:Now did you imaging him

[elrous0]

Aye, 'tis funny indeed!

Discovery better air it.

[antdude]

When it is aired, then Discovery will have big ratings from this!

Back, and to the left.

[DG]

Back, and to the left.

Back, and to the left.

DG

Haven't been very impressed with MB "experts"

[GodfatherofSoul]

I've seen the guys they bring in do some wacky stuff. One guy wanted to see if you could blow out a single window on an airliner fuselage and ended up using enough explosive to almost bisect the plane.

Very OT: Kari's new attitude

[GodfatherofSoul]

Miinor annoyance with the newer episodes. Kari used to be the hot geek girl, now she always seems to be pressing the sex pot thing; posing and flaunting it quite a bit. Seems too forced to me.

The Money Shot

[Anonymous Coward]

I would pay good money to see unedited footage of the looks on the faces of whatever Mythbusters and professional assistants they had on site as the cannon ball skipped over the hill out of site.

There's people you don't see too

[Sycraft-fu]

For example at a talk they gave they talked about the cement truck explosion. It was actually the FBI themselves, as in active agents on the bomb squad, who set everything up. You didn't see them on camera, but they were the ones doing it. They didn't say why they weren't shown, I would presume it is some FBI rule that their people can't appear in entertainment shows or something.

Whatever the case it wasn't just Doyle supervising, it was the actual FBI explosives team (he probably put them in contact). I mean short of maybe Army EOD, you don't get much more professional.

Near as I can tell they are extremely careful when it comes to this shit. For that matter I know they have to be because of insurance. Mythbusters is big money for Discovery, and that means Discovery has large insurance policies on all the cast. You can bet the insurance company requires them to take precautions. Nobody underwrites a policy they don't feel reasonably safe on.

Re:There's people you don't see too

[Electricity Likes Me]

The principle reason they couldn't use an actual 747 to test the "car being blown over by a jet engine" they said was because of the insurance companies - they weren't going to be allowed anywhere near a real a plane since *any* damage could be billed up to the replacement cost of a whole plane.

Fortunately for that one, the "myth" actually happened a few months after they'd shot it in Thailand I think.

Hugh Laurie got Busted?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the Mythbusters were attacking the myth of the fictional doctor from Princeton-Plainsboro...

stupid

[cornface]

I wish they would go back to doing urban legends and myths instead of recreating obviously fake viral videos and lame "omg blow up this" ideas from people on their godawful forum.

Either that or just scrap the entire show and let Grant do a new iteration of Mr. Wizard.

Next up, on MythBusters...

[sootman]

MythBusters: "And remember, don't try this at home!"

Luckless Homeowner: "I had no choice!"

They should...

[Anonymous Coward]

...have a crack at the LHC. They'll get you that God Particle.

Artillery range != Bomb range

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody is talking about what they should or shouldn't do at a the Sheriff's bomb range. I would suggest that firing a cannon should be done on an artillery range (or out in the empty desert) to do this type of testing. They were used to doing things at the bomb range but didn't think fully through what could go wrong. The cannon ball off the berm/hill reminded me of a story my dad told me as a kid. I remember my dad telling me about a handgun being fired at a hill (not a tall or large hill), that hit a rock or something and flew over the hill landed a half mile away in a guys back and paralyzed him from the waist down. My dad knew the guy who shot the gun. This was back in the 1930s or 1940's.

A new myth...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since ratings have been slipping after nearly 10 years of Mythbusters, the Discovery channel decided to spice things up a bit and cause a 'malfunction' at one of the experiments. The malfunction is fake, the damage is fake, and the people in the neighborhood were paid off to act like it happened. Just like the moon landing and 9/11. Next season on Mythbusters, will be a special 2 part episode to debunk this myth. Ratings problem solved.

you have no right to choose repairmen for

[decora]

damage you did to another persons property. that is the height of arrogance.

if someone had killed your kid or knocked a hole in your leg while producing a TV show, you'd damn sure want the lawyers involved.

this is the kind of stuff that caused the Twilight Zone movie deaths, some sanctimonious, self righteous asshole who thinks they are god's gift to the world, and hates "lawyers". lawyers are the only reason we dont shoot each other with ak-47s and devolve into sectarian warfare.

Launching things over hills seems popular..

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember the look on their faces that time they launched a car under a truck trailer and it kept going over a hill to the street outside.

Imagine to look on their faces when it's a hundred times bigger screwup.

They should

[Holi]

They should make a mythbusters episode about it.

Myth Confirmed:

[Tablizer]

"The myth is that the Alameda Bomb Range is not safe enough for experiments. Adam and I will test this myth by...."

Danger templates

[frank249]

Someone screwed up badly as you should never fire any weapon when there are people living in an area within the maximum range of the weapon you are firing. According to the article the round went more than 700 yards off the range which is way more than just an oops.

Sartorial

[slashdotresearch_mj]

I hope they put a beret on that cannonball before they fired it.

Dublin?

[tehcyder]

Hint for US submitters, for the rest of the world an unqualified "Dublin" refers to the capital of Eire. If you're referring to a town in California with the same name, you should make that clear.

Yes, I know you can work it out by RTFA, but that isn't the point.

offering room for 1500/per day with all facilities

[Anonymous Coward]

services appartment starting from 1500/per day for single occupancy on ECR, with airconditioner,fridge,tv,with 24 service and kitchen utilities- and we are services Banquet Hall designed for Function Hall & Conference Hall,Get togethers parties,Seminars,Birthday parties, NRI Wedding,Neechiatharatham,Seemantham,Baptisam,Wedding anniversary & engagement -Multi Cuisine restaurant,highly talented chefs provide a wide variet-veg & non veg-North Indian,Chinese,Tandoori,South Indian & SriLankan

In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

House busts Mythbusters!

Flight path of the cannonball

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.perceptionbuilder.com/mythbusters-cannonball-map