Slashdot Mirror
How Bill Nye Insulted NASCAR Fans About the Sport Being the "Anti-NASA" (examiner.com)
MarkWhittington writes: Bill Nye, the former science guy and current head of the Planetary Society, is very depressed about NASA and NASCAR, according to a story in Business Insider. He believes that the red-state yokels pay too much attention to NASCAR, which employs gas guzzling cars in races, and not enough to NASA, which employs cutting edge and environmentally correct technology, to explore the universe. However, it is a meme that the space agency itself once disagreed with. Indeed, NASA has suggested that the exploration of space is like NASCAR only with rocket ships instead of souped up, high powered cars
Nye.jump(shark);
"People who don't like what I like are stupid." NASCAR is probably the most science/engineering oriented sport out there. Every variable is a factor from length, slope, temperature & curvature of track, weather conditions, in addition to the thousands of variables that go into the car itself. Pit stops including how much fuel & # of tires to change are all very accurately calculated to gain an advantage on their competitors. If anything NASCAR could be used to encourage scientific & engineering education.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Sorry, NASCAR's not a sport.
Rockets aren't "environmentally correct".
To paraphrase Mr. Nye, “You do not like what interests me, so you must be an idiot, a moron or a redneck."
Indeed, NASA has suggested that the exploration of space is like NASCAR only with rocket ships instead of souped up, high powered cars.
No to mention that many of the rocket scientists and/or astronauts/test pilots are the same sort of - occasionally even the same instances of - "rednecks" that build and/or drive the cars.
Sure there were also transplanted German rocket scientists. But the Otto Cycle - the four-stroke cycle of the gasoline engine - was originated (with "coal gas" for the fuel) by a German scientist / engineer, too: Nikolaus August Otto.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
...there in your ghost manger, just lookin' at your Baby Einstein developmental videos, learnin' 'bout shapes and colors. I would like to thank you for bringin' me and my mama together, and also that my kids no longer sound like retarded gang-bangers.
Who in their right mind considers burning tons of dodecane (aka RP-1 kerosene) to produce tons of CO2 to be an "environmentally correct technology"?
STOP THINKING WISHFULLY, Mr. Science Guy!!!
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
First, NASA was pandering when it said space travel was like NASCAR. Any relationship is thoroughly stretched... except maybe the emphasis on orbiting. But space stations don't need to worry about camber.
Second, what Bill said was an "All tigers are cats" issue. Yes, you will probably see a higher concentration of NASCAR fans in the anti-NASA group, but by no means is he saying that NASA supporters cannot be NASCAR fans or that all NASCAR fans are unintelligent. He wasn't insulting "(All) NASCAR fans", he was equating people who pay more attention to NASCAR than NASA to a lower intelligence.
Ex.
A: Your cousin is stupid.
B: How dare you insult my family name!?
A: No, not your family name-- YOUR COUSIN.
There is absolutly nothign environmental about space travel.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Bill Nye is another anti-Sagan (just like Tyson).
On the first day of Aeronautics 101, before our professor said anything else, our professor told us about how he was called upon to consult for a racing team. They were having trouble getting maximum performance out of the car. He suggested a couple of tweaks to improve the car's aerodynamics and that improved the car's performance.
THIS is the kind of thing you say to NASCAR fans instead of insulting them like some sort of middle school know-it-all.
Nye's comments were a huge slap in the face to a lot of practicing ENGINEERS.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
My late father once told me that NASCAR rednecks were different than the ordinary rednecks of our family. I think it has to do with the gas (petrol vs. beans).
in after dozens of "omg he just doesn't like what someone else likes" posts. Why not read the original BI article?
He's not telling anyone not to like NASCAR. On the contrary, he's saying that he likes NASCAR, but that he'd like a slightly different sport even more, where the challenge was similar but the rules were different, to appeal to his mechanical engineering side.
If Bill Nye actually visited pit row in a NASCAR race he'd see that there is a hell of a lot of applied science being employed to eek out a bit more performance and mileage out of these vehicles. It isn't a drag strip - stopping for gas in NASCAR costs time and position and the teams would love to run the whole race without pitting. There are a lot of brains behind NASCAR.
A lot of performance improvement applied to commercial vehicles comes from NASCAR, believe it or not. You need to look past the BMC-drinking fans in the crowd that are there for the crashes and actually see what is happening in the pits.
Bill, just a reminder, you don't get racing fans to embrace science by calling them illiterate, shit-beer-drinking rednecks. You do this by showing where science is applied in things that they already love, and let their interest take off from there. I am a proponent of science too, and you don't help the cause by being an elitist prick in a bowtie.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Why not praise Formula E?
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
click-bait. well played, sir.
NASA research brought us a lot of things in the past. Not so much any more. We get excited now about putting a camera with a transmitter out at absurd distances, to find out things about our solar system that will (possibly) affect our lives 50-100 years from now.
Would it improve if we took some or all of the money spent on NASCAR and funneled it into NASA? Maybe a little... but would the result be more exploration, or simply more expensive exploration? Money's really the only thing that could be repurposed, because there is certainly a limit on how many people can participate in NASA.
They're eating up the author's framing as if it was literally what Nye said. What he actually said was that NASCAR should reward fuel efficiency as well as speed, as it would make a more interesting engineering problem.
Besides, everybody knows that if you're not NASCAR, you're NASCDR.
They contain no trace of intelligent life whatsoever.
Much like the previous testing locations.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Don't forget the Wankel, Diesel and jet engines.
Unlike NASA, NSACAR doesn't use taxpayer's money. People watch NSACAR for fun, voluntarily. If you really believe space exploration is important and exciting, use your own money. You can do this by donate to private space exploration institutions or companies, buy their products, invite your family and friends to do the same, etc.
Most of the advances in performance, stability, safety economy, etc. have come from the racing industry, or rather, car companies field testing those technologies in the racing world.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
NASA planning to communicate with rover by text message confirmed!
all the myriad ways each of the teams find to cheat
This just in: Studies show sports celebrate old "technology". Technonogies celebrated include bipedal physiques with some celebrating something called a biological brain.
Maybe Billy Bob Nye knew this, and just ignored it, but NASA's customers for time in its wind tunnels at the Langley Research Center include several NASCAR teams.
I read the article expecting to read Bill slamming NASCAR, but in reality he acknowledges the excitement of speed in a race and the level of engineering involved which is why he suggested a fuel limit to spur advancements in fuel consumption (due to the competitive nature of the race and the engineering component that already exists).
NASA research brought us a lot of things in the past. Not so much any more. We get excited now about putting a camera with a transmitter out at absurd distances, to find out things about our solar system that will (possibly) affect our lives 50-100 years from now.
NASA is about hard science as it always has been. It may not be as exciting as in the past because now that humans have done it, it isn't exciting. Humans have been to space now. They have been to the moon. They have a space station. The next step is a mission to Mars. Sometimes the science does not pay off dividends immediately. But can you say that about NASCAR technology? From what I can tell very little of it makes it into cars that we use every day. Part of the reason is in NASCAR a car is generally built to win one race and not to last. Also part of NASA's current mission is studying weather and climate of the Earth. To put into perspective, climate is one area of current science that is affected by NASA's previous explorations. The understanding of greenhouses today began with the exploration of Venus in the 1970s.
Would it improve if we took some or all of the money spent on NASCAR and funneled it into NASA? Maybe a little... but would the result be more exploration, or simply more expensive exploration? Money's really the only thing that could be repurposed, because there is certainly a limit on how many people can participate in NASA.
As the human population grows, there may come a time in the future where the Earth simply cannot sustain too many. What will humans do at that point? Relocating to other planets in this solar system is not a viable option today with the technology that we have. Someone has to do the initial work of developing this basic technology. NASA happens to be one of the few agencies that is doing it although they get less and less funding every year.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Hey Bill.. You do realize that NASCAR has not burned just gasoline for a number of years now... They switched to a 15% blend of ethanol way back in 2011 as I recall...
But hey there Billy boy... It's easy to criticize something you don't really understand. Three is actually a LOT of science and technology involved in NASCAR even though the car design is deceptively kept simple. There is actually a lot of really bright folks involved in NASCAR that do some really amazing things when you dig into what is actually going on. Yes most of it is hidden behind the pit wall, but that doesn't make what these people do any less worthy of respect and admiration. They are out there engineering solutions for problems which have never been seen before, developing tools and techniques to evaluate and quantify the effectiveness of their ideas then competing with others to see who can innovate the fastest without causing catastrophic failures in one of the most demanding places you can imagine.
And that's just the engineering side.... Don't get me started on how 6 guys can change 4 tires, fill up the tank,get the driver a drink and put the car back on the road and all the tools behind the wall in less than 18 seconds, almost without fail. Or how some driver, literally going down the road at 200 MPH in a vehicle that would rather be airborne at that speed, keeps the thing pointed in the right direction though the turns in the face of buffeting winds, air that's upset by the car 2 feet in front of him, blinding sun, ever changing track conditions and 42 other guys trying to use the same bit of asphalt to get across the same line before him. And how anybody can do that for as much as 500 miles, stopping only 16 seconds at a time.
Just admit it Billy, you just don't like NASCAR so you don't go to the races or bother to understand how any of it works... But do you have to go out and insult nearly half the population of a number of pretty important states with your ignorance of things they like to do? Just because they talk differently from you, doesn't make them stupid.... Look, you are entitled to not like NASCAR if it's not your cup of tea, but you are NOT entitled to making scathing remards about the people who don't see things you way.
Full disclosure... While I'm not a die-hard NASCAR fan and I find watching most of the races a bit tedious so I don't often take the time, I've been to a number of races over the years and I can see why people can really enjoy them. In general, it's good fun with good people and where it's not my favorite cup of tea, I don't mind consuming a bit from time to time. Same with baseball, football and sometimes even golf, and NASCAR is every bit the team sport that baseball or football is... So, Billy boy, what you are really proving with your inane statements is that you have a pretty high opinion of yourself, too high for your own good, and you are intolerant of people who are different from you and look down on them out of ignorance. In the future, I suggest you keep your mouth shut and I'd recommend you stay away from the track until this blows over some, it might not be safe if somebody recognizes you...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I've been really disappointed in government for the last 20 years or so - science and data is ignored and replaced with any opinion that somebody wants to broadcast repeatedly. It's unfortunate the we have a science guy saying things that only furthers this thinking. Auto racing has resulted in many safety features that are being used - including in space, and vice versa. I think we should rename him, Bill Nye the Science Sty.
Nye looked upon NASCAR and sneered, “Here I am trying to envision the smart, efficient transportation technology of tomorrow, and there is NASCAR celebrating a very old transportation technology of yesterday. You might call NASCAR the anti-NASA.”
Climate-change denial is Kool-Aid.
Climate-change science is single-malt scotch.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Whoosh!!
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
So all you NASCAR fans coming out of the wood work (and racing fans in general) I have a questions. Are there any motor racing events without restrictions to (at least) the engines?
As a huge nerd...I'd love to see a motor sport that is more about the ability to manufacture some crazy ass vehicle than how good the driver is.
Interest in space wore off when the glamorous visions of the Space Age wore off, and as a culture we became aware of the banal realities of it.
But kids have started to get interested in space again, thanks to Chris Hadfield's charisma and social media savvy.
We need to *keep* them interested, though.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
"I get it. I understand the appeal of a stock car race. It's just exciting, and I'm all for it," he writes. "I just want NASCAR to adapt to the new mainstream. I want the circuit to produce vehicles that could compete in races anywhere in the world, and win. I want the racing series to spin off new tech that will do more with less. For me, as an American mechanical engineer, I hope NASCAR decides to look forward rather than backward."
Starting a flame war with people who try to out-brag each other with regard to who has seen the worst racetrack collision up close and personal isn't worth your time. Some of them might actually be red-state congress-critters that would take no pause in going after what little funding NASA has left.
I dunno, NASCAR's always struck me as a bit, um...soft?
I watched the video
I went to the links on the article.
The owner claims that Bill was sneering and depressed about things, and seems to have called NASCAR fans "red state yokels".
I watched the video twice - didn't have anything there on any of that, it was a rather nice conversation with Bloomberg's people about education mostly.
I asked the author of the story, if he could provide me the cites or any information regarding Nye sneering about NASCAR fans, or calling them red state yokels.
But that isn't it at all - is it Slash Dotters. Nye rubs you the wrong way because he believes in global warming, so in the truthiness bubble, he actaully did sneer at those NASCAR fans who are red State yokels. That's what will get repeated by y'all isn't it?
If you actually do read the article, what he said was an opinion, and knowing NASCAR fans myself, a fairly mild one at that.
One of the things he writes:
“There’s no reason why NASCAR couldn’t be like [NASA]: a race with rules designed to reward the coolest, most advanced vehicle technologies,”
Doesn't sound too bad now does it?
Now a more controversial matter, but hardly insulting - He speaks of making a fuel use limit - I'm not all about that, I'de sooner see them burning ally, (just my opinion) but I'm certainly not insulted.
He also notes:
“I get it. I understand the appeal of a stock car race. It’s just exciting, and I’m all for it,” he writes. “I just want NASCAR to adapt to the new mainstream. I want the circuit to produce vehicles that could compete in races anywhere in the world, and win. I want the racing series to spin off new tech that will do more with less. For me, as an American mechanical engineer, I hope NASCAR decides to look forward rather than backward.”
Amazing how those innocuous comments get turned into Sneers and calling NASCAR fans Red State Yokels.
Anyhow, here is the link to a site that isn't grinding an axe, and prefers actual quotes to made up stuff. http://www.businessinsider.com...
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
the same sort of - occasionally even the same instances
Shhhh. You're ruining what I think is referred to as a circlejerk. Must feel superior regardless of the truth.
As the human population grows
Human population is shrinking in the developed world. There's no reason to believe that trend won't continue.
well it's funny that you say that because stock cars (out of a manufacturer) have better drag ratios, higher horsepower engines, go faster and have less emissions.
that was his problem with nascar. the aerodynamics testing is for bending the aero rules of nascar, they are not for producing the ideal vehicle for the race. the engine tweaks are for circumventing nascar engine rules etc. the rules are intended to keep all the cars the same - and the same in this case meaning using decades old base technology in a stupid way engineering wise.
the weight is regulated too.
get over it, there is no actual car go fast research going on in nascar anymore. if you really thought it had anything to do with using less fuel and maintaining speed the cars would look totally different and use different valvetrains.. hell your honda civic from mid '90s is a century further in technological concepts than the shitters in nascar.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I don't know if your are joking or not, but know a number of scientist (of the rocket persuasion) who were very into the tech, specifically in engine efficiency, and some who even got patents working with some of the greats of the field.
The rocket scientist that I know, who built stuff sitting on the moon right now, took kids to NASCAR. His father used to participate in amateur motorcycle racing when he (the rocket scientist) was a kid. That was partly responsible for developing his interesting in how mechanical things worked when he was young.
But the developed world is not the entirety of the world is it? Overall, humans population is growing.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Wow!
There are already racing series that encourage fuel efficiency. Formula E is all electric, and is growing in popularity. It has HUGE sponsors.
http://www.fiaformulae.com/
A mix of fuel efficient and aviation could be some flavor of aircraft racing. Aircraft can actually be fuel efficient. Quickie aircraft will get about 80MPG while going over 150MHP.
http://www.aviastar.org/air/us...
Two seaters can get 45 MPG (or go 180mph):
http://www.planeandpilotmag.co...
This guy tweaked his airplane to get 100mpg
http://blog.aopa.org/blog/?p=7...
There are *LOTS* of aircraft that will get these fuel efficiencies.
If you count seat miles per gallon, most modern jet liners will get about 100mpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hell, after 5 laps you've seen it all...
around and around and around and around and around and around and around.
You'd be better off just waiting a few hours for the crash reel to find its way to the internet, since I'm guessing that's what most people watch it for... which begs me to wonder why we don't have a professional league demolition derby.
Why is Bill Nye being so elevated because of his opinions rather than his research? Does he even do any actual research? Can you even call it science if you only talk about your opinions on things? Are we just supposed to accept his opinion because 40 years ago he studied mechanical engineering? Or are people accepting his opinions because he was a TV personality as George Carlin once mocked in "Hello, I'm a famous person..."? And as for this NASCAR flap, is he really bitching because he thinks that if NASCAR went away, there would be more money for NASA and he might finally get chosen to be an astronaut after being rejected over and over?
The rocket pollutants that NASA spews doesn't make NASA a poster child for eco friendly. NASCAR has actually contributed back to the community in terms of developing safer automobiles.
NASA sends you on one way trips somewhere else.
NASCAR sends you around and around and you never get anywhere.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
...that has killed NASA. It was another condescending blue state jackass, not half as smart as he thinks he is, Barack Obama.
The main reason for population growth right now is medicine and longer lifespans. If everyone would just die at 30 from an ingrown toenail infection, population wouldn't be growing. Also, there is a lot of unused space on Earth. You could fit 7 billion people in less than a quarter the area of the US with the same population density of Seattle. Africa alone has enough arable land to feed 7 billion people. Considering most people don't live in the US, this would seem like a lot of growing space.
Also, there is a lot of unused space on Earth.
Technically true but meaningless as you neglected to factor in the amount of space to sustain a population. In your example how much land is required to sustain 7 billion. How much infrastructure do you need for that populaton?
Your article also explains why it doesn't happen today: Politics, corruption, legal matters. It also does not state what happens if they world's population continues to grow. Can Africa sustain the world at 14 billion, 21 billion? What about the toil of environmental problems? Larger and bigger questions that the amount of physical space a person can take.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
What about the toil of environmental problems?
I pointed out and provided a link that the continent of Africa is sufficient space to sustain that population. This leave all of Europe, Asia, South and most of North America for extra. But as you say: Politics, corruption, legal matters. These are engineering and not physical limit problems.
An interesting aside, you could fit the entire world population into Wisconsin with lower density than Manilla.
slashdot really has taken a nosedive. I blame 911.
I pointed out and provided a link that the continent of Africa is sufficient space to sustain that population.
You are conflating two things as equal. It "only" takes a quarter of the US to fit 7 billion people. And it "only" takes the entire continent of Africa (if it were properly converted into farmland) to feed the world's population. Which "only" is it? By your own argument, it "only" takes an entire continent and a quarter of one to feed and house the whole world's population. At the same time, you've disregarded things like power, heat, cooling, sewage, water, sanitation, etc. Those things are somewhat vital to sustain a population. It's not just about 2 things that sustain a population: Space and food. So I wouldn't say that Africa is enough to "sustain" the population.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
vital to sustain a population.
It's not a physically impossible problem. There are enough resources on earth to build a nuclear power plant for ever 4 million or so people. And enough fuel to power them also.
There are enough resources on earth to build a nuclear power plant for ever 4 million or so people. And enough fuel to power them also.
Again, you're ignoring real, logistical problems with your "only" thinking. If "only" we could build enough nuclear reactors to supply7 billion people. If "only" we could lay down the infrastructure of power lines efficiently and neatly without any problems whatsoever. If "only" all the nuclear powers gave up their nuclear weapons and converted the material into fuel instead. If "only" . . . .
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
....is driving around in circles and wasting fuel a "sport"? NASCAR is as senseless as American Football.