If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Archimedes: 1, Mythbusters: 0   (cnn.com) divider line 395
    More: Repeat, reflected light, Canary Wharf, six-yard box, London skyscrapers, beam of light, Jaguar XJ  
•       •       •

31905 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Sep 2013 at 1:26 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



395 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-03 03:04:09 PM
The beauty of Archimedes mirror weapon was that he just had to say that it worked.  Spread the news around the ancient world about this fearsome weapon that burns ships to a crisp.  The point is deterrence, not functionality.  It's not like they had the internet or TV news reports back then, everything was word of mouth.  You could dummy up one fake demonstration, burn a few ships in the harbor, claim the weapon destroyed them, and sit back in safety for generations.
 
2013-09-03 03:04:14 PM

OnlyM3: Voiceofreason01 [TotalFark]
2013-09-03 01:35:30 PM


Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.

yes, yes you must be some kind of super genius because you can point out that the experiments in a show primarily about blowing stuff up are not always rigorously performed. Besides that, they do a pretty good job given the limitations of the medium: production time, budget and air time.
They did 3 episodes (one being a full length campaign ad) "proving" the Archimedes claim busted, when there's a youtube video of some (HS?) science class actually doing it.



No, there isn't. Some students showed that they could hold modern mirrors in an array that would set pitch afire at close range. That translates to polished bronze shields setting moving ships afire at an effective range in no way at all.
 
2013-09-03 03:04:40 PM
Given the concave design, did the architect not see this coming?  Is this architect a moron?
 
2013-09-03 03:04:40 PM

BafflerMeal: vudukungfu: Can we please get back to posting pictures of the hot redheaded lady?

[encoremag.com image 560x300]


Jesus...even airbrushing her to the Nth degree isn't enough to hide teh fugly
 
2013-09-03 03:04:43 PM

scottydoesntknow: Mikey1969: I agree though, it's like nails on a chalkboard when they call their crappy methods "science", my stepsons know not to take anything they say on that show as actual science, and if they have questions about any of the experiments, we can research them together, and most likely find more accurate results in our first Google search.

And THIS is why Mythbusters is important. It actually got your stepson interested in science, even if it was to disprove their "science". I applaud the show for getting kids interested in testing theories, coming up with solutions, etc.

It's why I find the Big Bang Theory hate on here to be so funny. That show has gotten tons of people interested in science and science fiction, but because it's on as a sitcom, it automatically gets hate. Some of the brightest minds on this planet absolutely love the show (Stephen Hawking, Neil Tyson, Brian Greene, Astronaut Mike Massimino) but Fark has to hate it because it's actually popular.


A: Doing bad science and calling it science does more harm than good. Think of how many people out there just plop their kids down in front of this show without bothering to tell the kids that it's crappy science...

B: Big Bang Theory goes out of their way to actually include inside jokes for the science community, and when they discuss science related theory, they are accurate, it's not surprising at all that the science community loves the show. I can't understand the hate for that show either, maybe it's from people who don't know what a 'science' is...
 
2013-09-03 03:05:22 PM
Some much MB hate... it's a goddamn TV show people. It's not "real science" obviously. Don't take it seriously and if you don't find it entertaining, don't watch it. I do sometimes yell at the TV at their methods but in the end I'm mostly watching for Kari and so I can watch their high-speed explosions frame-by-frame.

I totally buy their conclusions on this myth. Imagine you are a dude with a polished metal shield trying to angle the light at a moving ship some few hundreds of yards away. How do you even aim the goddamn thing, let alone keep your light aimed at a single point on a ship that is both moving through the water and constantly bobbing up and down in the swell. And even if you can manage that trick, how could you possibly do it in tandem with a few hundred other people all doing the same thing? With the entire ship illuminated you wouldn't be able to see the light from your shield painting the ship, assuming your shield is a good enough mirror to even cause a visible spot (which I think is highly doubtful).
 
2013-09-03 03:05:37 PM

Mikey1969: Guadior42: Mikey1969: Highroller48: SERIOUSLY?  SERIOUSLY?  W. T. F. ???

This far in and no Kari Byron?  All of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[xbradtc.files.wordpress.com image 723x1024]

Her and her stand in when the babies are on the way(Jessi Combs) are She is the best parts of the show. The two dudes on the build team are cool, but Kari and Jessi makes it worth tuning in for...

FTFY

No you didn't. Jessi Combs is not only hot, but she actually knows what she's doing. Kari was a street performer they hired for the show. Combs could actually do build out with any of the guys on the show.


Actually, I believe Kari was working for Jamie @ M5 prior to the show, and they actually just asked her if she would be the "butt model" for the 'Stuck to an airplane toilet seat' episode.. She didn't come back to the show for a year or so, but continued to work for M5 in the meantime.

Yeah, just checked IMDB and between 7 March 2003 and 8 June 2004, she was just an M5 employee.
 
2013-09-03 03:07:15 PM

Gosling: Mikey1969: No you didn't. Jessi Combs is not only hot, but she actually knows what she's doing. Kari was a street performer they hired for the show. Combs could actually do build out with any of the guys on the show.

Well, now Kari's been building stuff for the show for 10 years. Do those not count?


She really just dresses it up. Grant does most of the design and Tori(Or however they spell his name) does most of the heavy lifting. Kari may be able to assist, and might even be able to do some welding at this point, but she can't hold a candle to the stuff Jessi Combs can build. Watched that girl spec out and build an entire roll cage on her 4x4 show...
 
2013-09-03 03:07:57 PM

Kit Fister: ThatDarkFellow: Every time they did Archimedes mirror they went about it in the laziest, most half-assed way possible.

Yes, because they were supposed to be superserious about it in order to actually prove something in the most stringent way possible. *eyeroll*


Heh, what? If they weren't going to take it seriously then they shouldn't have bothered.
 
2013-09-03 03:08:10 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: vudukungfu: Can we please get back to posting pictures of the hot redheaded lady?

I have no idea why, but my hots for her tripled when she got preggers

[blogs.babble.com image 286x400]

Mmmm hot red head pregger boobs


same
 
2013-09-03 03:08:30 PM

bubo_sibiricus: J. Frank Parnell: If the Mythbusters subjugated themselves to a couple physicists the show would have more scientific sway.

And you would never see it again after that episode.  Its ratings would drop into the toilet and the execs would pull it.

As they should.

If I want rigorous peer-reviewed science, I'll read a peer-reviewed journal.  It's not like there's a shortage of them.

Mythbusters is about a mindset that is sorely needed in the general population - that testing an idea is actually good.  Many organizations would prefer that people don't do this and take things at face value "because we told you so."


I'd probably watch it, but woe to any business model that includes me.

Regarding your second point.
 
2013-09-03 03:09:05 PM

GameSprocket: OnlyM3: They get more wrong than right. A box of sock monkeys and a soiled diaper would get better results than these two morons.

I started watching the show with my 7 year old.

The Myth Buster:
1. Clearly state the hypothesis being tested.
2. Explain how they are going to test the theory and often, the limitations of their experiment.
3. They often graph out the results.
4. Then they get goofy and blow crap up.

I want my son to learn items 1-3 in that list. He likes item 4. I am not so interested in the scientific rigor of their experiments as I am in how they demonstrate the methodology.



That's the problem. Their testing is incomplete, or completely wrong. You want your kid learning how to do it wrong by people that you are telling him are supposed to be "experts"? Scientific rigor is actually extremely important, or your results are contaminated.
 
2013-09-03 03:09:40 PM

Paris1127: but known by many Londoners as the "Walkie Talkie" for its distinctive shape.

[www.skyscrapernews.com image 572x643]
This is supposed to look like a walkie-talkie? I think this skyscraper in Santiago is way more walkie-talkie-esque:
[www.celebratebig.com image 425x640]

/also: Archimedes sought to burn a fleet of Roman ships using the Sun. The skyscraper melted plastic in a stationary vehicle. Point: Mythbusters. Seriously, they've tested this myth like 3 times now... Even Obama couldn't get them to do it.


Is that first pic shoppped??
 
2013-09-03 03:11:18 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: The beauty of Archimedes mirror weapon was that he just had to say that it worked.  Spread the news around the ancient world about this fearsome weapon that burns ships to a crisp.  The point is deterrence, not functionality.  It's not like they had the internet or TV news reports back then, everything was word of mouth.  You could dummy up one fake demonstration, burn a few ships in the harbor, claim the weapon destroyed them, and sit back in safety for generations.


That works OK until the Romans show up. The Honey Badgers of the ancient Med did not care about your wunderwaffen.
 
2013-09-03 03:12:44 PM

ThatDarkFellow: Kit Fister: ThatDarkFellow: Every time they did Archimedes mirror they went about it in the laziest, most half-assed way possible.

Yes, because they were supposed to be superserious about it in order to actually prove something in the most stringent way possible. *eyeroll*

Heh, what? If they weren't going to take it seriously then they shouldn't have bothered.


Given the conditions they were going for, I'd say they did it pretty damn well. They're akin to a backyard science fair. If you want to see the tests done to the level of, say, JPL or MIT, then by all means, tune into their productions.
 
2013-09-03 03:14:20 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: vudukungfu: Can we please get back to posting pictures of the hot redheaded lady?

I have no idea why, but my hots for her tripled when she got preggers

[blogs.babble.com image 286x400]

Mmmm hot red head pregger boobs


don't forget about the post pregnancy boobs?
 
2013-09-03 03:14:21 PM

Mikey1969: A: Doing bad science and calling it science does more harm than good. Think of how many people out there just plop their kids down in front of this show without bothering to tell the kids that it's crappy science...


Well of course, but that's when parenting actually steps in (like you and your stepson). The kids who become interested in science without the parental guidance are still interested in science, they'll just have to be corrected at the institutional level for their methods.

I still stand by the fact that any science is better than no science. Even crappy science leads the way to figuring out correct science (provided the person has the dedication to do so).
 
2013-09-03 03:14:40 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Cyclometh: PanicMan: And the Archimedes mirror concept could have been used as psychological warfare to keep enemy ships from getting close to land.

Actually, it could have been quite effective as a navigational hazard. You get 800 guys holding reflective shields to focus on you, you're not going to burst into flames but you're damn sure not going to be able to see well.

Blind the crews and cause a few ships to collide and you've got a pretty effective weapon. Don't need to set someone on fire to accomplish its goal.

That wasn't in the story, though.


Sure.  And I don't fault the Mythbusters for that, their experiement was very interesting and well done.  But just because something didn't happen exactly as the story, doesn't mean there's not some truth somewhere, or other possibilites they couldn't or didn't consider.  They maybe had a week or two to plan, resource, set up, and shoot the episode.    So for the most part I have very few issues with the show.

In my line of work we would call what they do "developmental testing".  And for not being testers, they do it very well.  The next step is "operational testing", which throws in all those real world effects (normal sailors, war conditions, multiple ships, etc).  But we would also classify this as "live fire" which you DO NOT do operationally, for obvious reasons.
 
2013-09-03 03:17:00 PM
for the lulz...

news.gaeatimes.com
 
2013-09-03 03:19:13 PM
Slight threadjack:

Anyone else find it funny that there's more history in one episode of Drunk History on Comedy Central than the entire line-up on the History channel?
 
2013-09-03 03:21:07 PM
i just realized that most of the farkers hating on MYTHBUSTERS seems to have watch an awful lot of MYTHBUSTERS over the years

of course the same could be said of farkers hating on pretty much anything entertaining...like family guy and big bang theory
 
2013-09-03 03:22:11 PM

capt.hollister: viscountalpha: capt.hollister: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...


There are situations that are IMPOSSIBLE to replicate in a lab. Strange shiat happens and its the stuff of legends.

They are not, but even a genius like Archimedes could still only have used technology which existed in his day. There is no magic.


Things Archimedes invented or discovered during the bronze age:
Catapult
compound pulley system
screw pump
a planetarium
naval engineering
the basis of modern geometry, calculus and physics
pi

Things the Mythbusters have invented in the Modern Era:

State of the art of architecture and craftsmanship during Archimede's era
www.mlahanas.de
 24.media.tumblr.com

The Mythbusters qualifications as: master builders; master coppersmiths; military sappers:


Archimedes' Human Capital:

25,000 men under arms(conservatively- Syracuse had a population of 300,000 when it was beseiged, and Archimedes was captain of the defenses)

The Mythbusters Human Capital:

two pairs of tits, four helpless dorks, and people from the internet that want to be on TV

I'd say Archimedes was sliiiightly more able to build a death ray than the Walrus and the Crapenter were.
 
2013-09-03 03:22:23 PM

Southern100: Mikey1969: Guadior42: Mikey1969: Highroller48: SERIOUSLY?  SERIOUSLY?  W. T. F. ???

This far in and no Kari Byron?  All of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[xbradtc.files.wordpress.com image 723x1024]

Her and her stand in when the babies are on the way(Jessi Combs) are She is the best parts of the show. The two dudes on the build team are cool, but Kari and Jessi makes it worth tuning in for...

FTFY

No you didn't. Jessi Combs is not only hot, but she actually knows what she's doing. Kari was a street performer they hired for the show. Combs could actually do build out with any of the guys on the show.

Actually, I believe Kari was working for Jamie @ M5 prior to the show, and they actually just asked her if she would be the "butt model" for the 'Stuck to an airplane toilet seat' episode.. She didn't come back to the show for a year or so, but continued to work for M5 in the meantime.

Yeah, just checked IMDB and between 7 March 2003 and 8 June 2004, she was just an M5 employee.


She's an artist, does sculpting and photography. She graduated with a degree in film and sculpture. She got hired by M5 because she kept hanging around asking for a job. Sure, she's got talent, but the fact that her first paying gig was so they could use a nice mold of her ass says that she might be a little more eye candy than rigorous building capacity. Not that I dislike her in any way, I really like her a lot.
 
2013-09-03 03:22:23 PM
All I know is that XKCD sucks way more than Mythbusters.
 
2013-09-03 03:22:49 PM

Mikey1969: That's the problem. Their testing is incomplete, or completely wrong. You want your kid learning how to do it wrong by people that you are telling him are supposed to be "experts"? Scientific rigor is actually extremely important, or your results are contaminated.


I want them to learn that claims must stand up to testing, which most kids don't get.  Shiat, most ADULTS don't get it.  This isn't about rigor, publishable process, or being "complete" or "uncontaminated".  It's a TV show, not a university science department.  It's about the basic idea that things have to be tested, and claims require evidence and have a basis in fact.

Mythbusters does more for intelligent thought than any television show out there.  Including the survey-style documentaries like Cosmos.  Those are just lectures.  Good lectures, yes, but they're just smart people in exposition.  This gets people interested, gets their hands in the experiments, and shows you how stuff works.  It's not perfect, it's not complete, but it pushes millions of people in the right direction.
 
2013-09-03 03:23:14 PM

Mikey1969: GameSprocket: OnlyM3: They get more wrong than right. A box of sock monkeys and a soiled diaper would get better results than these two morons.

I started watching the show with my 7 year old.

The Myth Buster:
1. Clearly state the hypothesis being tested.
2. Explain how they are going to test the theory and often, the limitations of their experiment.
3. They often graph out the results.
4. Then they get goofy and blow crap up.

I want my son to learn items 1-3 in that list. He likes item 4. I am not so interested in the scientific rigor of their experiments as I am in how they demonstrate the methodology.


That's the problem. Their testing is incomplete, or completely wrong. You want your kid learning how to do it wrong by people that you are telling him are supposed to be "experts"? Scientific rigor is actually extremely important, or your results are contaminated.


Yes. It is less than an hour-long show usually covering more than one experiment. Sure they could reproduce the sap-drop experiment and have an extra-special episode every couple of decades when something happens, but I don't think that would interest anyone in Science.

There are not too many programs or movies that inspire anyone by delving into the mundane details of their subject. Even Sagan's "Cosmos" didn't get into the detailed mathematical equations behind the topic of each show. This whole idea of "perfect or nothing" is why STEM education is falling off. The media can't portray anything scientific (or historical) without being nitpicked to death, so these things drop out of the popular culture.
 
2013-09-03 03:23:49 PM

scottydoesntknow: Well of course, but that's when parenting actually steps in (like you and your stepson). The kids who become interested in science without the parental guidance are still interested in science, they'll just have to be corrected at the institutional level for their methods.

I still stand by the fact that any science is better than no science. Even crappy science leads the way to figuring out correct science (provided the person has the dedication to do so).


I understand that, I'm just worried about the adults out there who think these guys' science technique is 100% perfect, that's where the bad science can be really bad, that's the part that bothers me.
 
2013-09-03 03:25:43 PM

scottydoesntknow: Slight threadjack:

Anyone else find it funny that there's more history in one episode of Drunk History on Comedy Central than the entire line-up on the History channel?


don't forget the Animal Channel....

http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/mermaids/videos/mermaids.htm
 
2013-09-03 03:25:49 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: vudukungfu: Can we please get back to posting pictures of the hot redheaded lady?

I have no idea why, but my hots for her tripled when she got preggers

[blogs.babble.com image 286x400]

Mmmm hot red head pregger boobs


CSB time:  my red headed wife is preggo
 
2013-09-03 03:28:26 PM

willfullyobscure: I'd say Archimedes was sliiiightly more able to build a death ray than the Walrus and the Crapenter were.


So, Archimedes wins because you (want to) believe he could have done it? And your supporting evidence is a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the question at hand?

Because that sure as shiat sounds like science to me!

No, wait- it sounds like  junk science, that's what I meant. Assuming a conclusion that you like and then finding stuff that looks like it could be supportive of it, but only if you don't look to closely.

/I'll have a steaming glass of that.
 
2013-09-03 03:28:50 PM

Khellendros: Mikey1969: That's the problem. Their testing is incomplete, or completely wrong. You want your kid learning how to do it wrong by people that you are telling him are supposed to be "experts"? Scientific rigor is actually extremely important, or your results are contaminated.

I want them to learn that claims must stand up to testing, which most kids don't get.  Shiat, most ADULTS don't get it.  This isn't about rigor, publishable process, or being "complete" or "uncontaminated".  It's a TV show, not a university science department.  It's about the basic idea that things have to be tested, and claims require evidence and have a basis in fact.

Mythbusters does more for intelligent thought than any television show out there.  Including the survey-style documentaries like Cosmos.  Those are just lectures.  Good lectures, yes, but they're just smart people in exposition.  This gets people interested, gets their hands in the experiments, and shows you how stuff works.  It's not perfect, it's not complete, but it pushes millions of people in the right direction.


But they "pass" and "fail" stuff based on bad methods. That does nothing to promote science. It's like lighting your farts, calling it 'science' and leaving it at that. Their testing would include whose farts were flammable and whose weren't.
 
2013-09-03 03:29:34 PM
I don't get why architecture firms think this is such an impossible thing to think of happening.  The Disney Concert Hall was totally death raying shiat in LA when it was first constructed.  They had to sandblast it and put up netting.
 
2013-09-03 03:30:07 PM

Mikey1969: Their testing would include whose farts were flammable and whose weren't.


Which, juvenile chortling aside, could actually lead to other questions and answers- like how diet affects it, etc.

Careful, or you'll find yourself doing science!
 
2013-09-03 03:30:35 PM

Mikey1969: scottydoesntknow: Well of course, but that's when parenting actually steps in (like you and your stepson). The kids who become interested in science without the parental guidance are still interested in science, they'll just have to be corrected at the institutional level for their methods.

I still stand by the fact that any science is better than no science. Even crappy science leads the way to figuring out correct science (provided the person has the dedication to do so).

I understand that, I'm just worried about the adults out there who think these guys' science technique is 100% perfect, that's where the bad science can be really bad, that's the part that bothers me.


The people who believe their science is 100% perfect will never do anything to affect actual science because their belief in how the scientific process works is wrong. They'll either end up educating themselves or giving up.
 
2013-09-03 03:30:56 PM

Highroller48: SERIOUSLY?  SERIOUSLY?  W. T. F. ???

This far in and no Kari Byron?  All of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[xbradtc.files.wordpress.com image 723x1024]


Good lord! Where is that from and are there more?
 
2013-09-03 03:31:10 PM

scottydoesntknow: They'll either end up educating themselves or giving up.


ITT: The third option.
 
2013-09-03 03:34:46 PM

johnny_vegas: scottydoesntknow: Slight threadjack:

Anyone else find it funny that there's more history in one episode of Drunk History on Comedy Central than the entire line-up on the History channel?

don't forget the Animal Channel....

http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/mermaids/videos/mermaids.htm


Pffft, Discovery also did that during Shark Week with the whole Megalodon fiasco. I would call them a bunch of dumbasses, but that award goes to the countless people who actually believed it was a real documentary and there are still Megalodon sharks that live in the oceans.
 
2013-09-03 03:38:00 PM
I can't believe no one has posted the pick about the pull out method being busted.
 
2013-09-03 03:38:41 PM
Ugh. Pic. Not pick.
 
2013-09-03 03:42:01 PM

Cyclometh: willfullyobscure: I'd say Archimedes was sliiiightly more able to build a death ray than the Walrus and the Crapenter were.

So, Archimedes wins because you (want to) believe he could have done it? And your supporting evidence is a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the question at hand?

Because that sure as shiat sounds like science to me!

No, wait- it sounds like  junk science, that's what I meant. Assuming a conclusion that you like and then finding stuff that looks like it could be supportive of it, but only if you don't look to closely.

/I'll have a steaming glass of that.


So you have no cogent response to any part of my hypothesis that Archimedes possessed not only the resources, the demonstrable ability to engineer sophisticated large scale projects in any medium available, and the man power, not so say the innate mental ability, to create the death ray of legend,  and the two guys running a low budget reality tv show where not able to successfully formulate or test a comparable experiment?

How interesting.
 
2013-09-03 03:42:29 PM

bubo_sibiricus: J. Frank Parnell: If the Mythbusters subjugated themselves to a couple physicists the show would have more scientific sway.

And you would never see it again after that episode.  Its ratings would drop into the toilet and the execs would pull it.

As they should.

If I want rigorous peer-reviewed science, I'll read a peer-reviewed journal.  It's not like there's a shortage of them.

Mythbusters is about a mindset that is sorely needed in the general population - that testing an idea is actually good.  Many organizations would prefer that people don't do this and take things at face value "because we told you so."


Exactly - the show isn't about scientific rigour.  It's about evidence based thinking - asking questions, forming (often multiple) hypothesis, testing them, refining (or abandoning) the hypothesis and/or experiment based on the results - rinse and repeat.   That's the core of science.  I also love the fact that they will often respond to criticism of their techniques and conclusions with an open mind and revisit past experiments with new information and techniques - this is something that some real scientific communities could do more effectively.

The one thing I wish they would do better would be to discuss the limitations of their experiments.  The error bounds are as important as the data point - the lack of rigour doesn't necessarily bother me if the limitations are understood.  And I could certainly do their homework a little better on some questions.  But those are teachable moments for my kids & I - explaining why the experiment may not really be proving things one way or another - and then they come back with a followup episode exploring those points reinforcing the whole evidence thinking bit (and making dad look good).

Could test these "myths" with all the scientific rigour, significant number of trials, well done error analysis, etc.?  Sure - but nobody would watch it or pay for it.
 
2013-09-03 03:43:27 PM

Mikey1969: That's the problem. Their testing is incomplete, or completely wrong. You want your kid learning how to do it wrong by people that you are telling him are supposed to be "experts"? Scientific rigor is actually extremely important, or your results are contaminated.


No.  I want my kid to have their interest sparked.  I would like the real teachers in their life (myself included) to show them the proper scientific methods when they do their own experiments.  I certainly don't expect an hour TV entertainment show to do anything more than start the learning process.  I also love when my kids see them do revisits.  It introduces them to the basic fact that an experiment can (in fact must) be used to refine a hypothesis and be done again.  Once again, it is the job of the real teachers (who hopefully spend more than one hour a week teaching their subject) to teach them the extent that this must be done in "real" science.
 
2013-09-03 03:43:56 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: vudukungfu: Can we please get back to posting pictures of the hot redheaded lady?

I have no idea why, but my hots for her tripled when she got preggers

[blogs.babble.com image 286x400]

Mmmm hot red head pregger boobs


bigstickcombat.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-03 03:44:01 PM

willfullyobscure: capt.hollister: viscountalpha: capt.hollister: Dick Gozinya: You mean the kings of junk science might have got something wrong? Say it aint so...


There are situations that are IMPOSSIBLE to replicate in a lab. Strange shiat happens and its the stuff of legends.

They are not, but even a genius like Archimedes could still only have used technology which existed in his day. There is no magic.

Things Archimedes invented or discovered during the bronze age:
Catapult
compound pulley system
screw pump
a planetarium
naval engineering
the basis of modern geometry, calculus and physics
pi

Things the Mythbusters have invented in the Modern Era:

State of the art of architecture and craftsmanship during Archimede's era
[www.mlahanas.de image 672x504]
 [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x625]

The Mythbusters qualifications as: master builders; master coppersmiths; military sappers:


Archimedes' Human Capital:

25,000 men under arms(conservatively- Syracuse had a population of 300,000 when it was beseiged, and Archimedes was captain of the defenses)

The Mythbusters Human Capital:

two pairs of tits, four helpless dorks, and people from the internet that want to be on TV

I'd say Archimedes was sliiiightly more able to build a death ray than the Walrus and the Crapenter were.


Are you retarded? Yeah, right, the manpower is just the few in front of the camera. They don't have an entire team that they've shown behind the scenes in multiple myths. Did you also know that Ty Pennington build every god damn house himself with only a single hammer and some nails that Sears donated?
 
2013-09-03 03:45:04 PM

GameSprocket: Mikey1969: GameSprocket: OnlyM3: They get more wrong than right. A box of sock monkeys and a soiled diaper would get better results than these two morons.

I started watching the show with my 7 year old.

The Myth Buster:
1. Clearly state the hypothesis being tested.
2. Explain how they are going to test the theory and often, the limitations of their experiment.
3. They often graph out the results.
4. Then they get goofy and blow crap up.

I want my son to learn items 1-3 in that list. He likes item 4. I am not so interested in the scientific rigor of their experiments as I am in how they demonstrate the methodology.


That's the problem. Their testing is incomplete, or completely wrong. You want your kid learning how to do it wrong by people that you are telling him are supposed to be "experts"? Scientific rigor is actually extremely important, or your results are contaminated.

Yes. It is less than an hour-long show usually covering more than one experiment. Sure they could reproduce the sap-drop experiment and have an extra-special episode every couple of decades when something happens, but I don't think that would interest anyone in Science.

There are not too many programs or movies that inspire anyone by delving into the mundane details of their subject. Even Sagan's "Cosmos" didn't get into the detailed mathematical equations behind the topic of each show. This whole idea of "perfect or nothing" is why STEM education is falling off. The media can't portray anything scientific (or historical) without being nitpicked to death, so these things drop out of the popular culture.


This. Unfortunately when it comes to science, it is essentially a religion whereby the zealots biatch and moan if it's not exactly perfect and executed with MIT laboratory conditions.
 
2013-09-03 03:46:00 PM

CrazyCracka420: IdBeCrazyIf: vudukungfu: Can we please get back to posting pictures of the hot redheaded lady?

I have no idea why, but my hots for her tripled when she got preggers

[blogs.babble.com image 286x400]

Mmmm hot red head pregger boobs

CSB time:  my red headed wife is preggo


mmm.  Gingermilk.

Just sayin.
 
2013-09-03 03:48:16 PM

baronbloodbath: "Wait, what?"

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x300]


Nicely done!
 
2013-09-03 03:56:29 PM

CrazyCracka420: CSB time: my red headed wife is preggo


Pics or it didn't happen

ManateeGag: don't forget about the post pregnancy boobs?


This week on a very special MythBusters, we're going to testing someones bust. Does being left handed or right handed change the amount of milk a breast produces on that same dominate side?
 
2013-09-03 03:59:07 PM

mbillips: Uh, have you seen polished bronze? At any distance at all, you'd barely notice the reflection. Even a modern lighthouse isn't blinding, at night, at any range over a mile. You have to factor in the RANGE at which Archimedes' weapon would have to work. In order to focus on a target at 100 meters, you'd need a mirror diameter of 200 meters, and unless you had tiered bleachers to work with, you'd have only a narrow band of focused light. And if the ships were closer than 100 meters, under oars, they'd cover the distance to the dock in a matter of seconds. Triremes are FAST. At better than 10 knots in a sprint, you'd have less than 20 seconds to start a fire. Even if you did set it on fire, it would be alongside and unloaded before it became dangerous to the ship. And all the other ships you WEREN'T focusing on would have unloaded their marines.

This one is too ludicrous to NEED busting.


Throwing both science and mythbusting completely aside, what I find most fascinating is the question of how this myth originated in the first place and why it is so pervasive. Something so obviously absurd and unworkable was accepted as part of the historical record for millennia. It's not like this account was alongside stories of Greek armies riding pegesuses..pegusi.. flying horses.

There are multiple historic references to Archimedes' defending Greece against the Romans with contraptions and and that he was responsible for setting their fleet on fire. Two second century A.D. writers, Lucian of Samosata and Galen of Pergamon, do say that Archimedes set fire to the Roman ships, but don't say exactly how. Zonares and Tzetzes writing in the 12th century quoted from an earlier work (now lost) called the Siege of Syracuse and said:

"At last, in an incredible manner, he burned up the whole Roman fleet. For by tilting a kind of mirror he ignited the air from the beam and kindled a great flame, the whole of which he directed at the ships at anchor in the path of the fire, until he consumed them all."

"[Archimedes] constructed a sort of hexagonal mirror. He placed at proper distances from the mirror other smaller mirrors of the same kind, which were moved by means of their hinges and certain plates of metal. He placed it amid the rays of the sun at noon, both in summer and winter. The rays being reflected by this, a frightful fiery kindling was excited on the ships, and it reduced them to ashes, from the distance of a bow shot. Thus the old man baffled Marcellus, by means of his inventions."


Note that there are specifics provided that involve neither polished mirrors held by soldiers or a single, giant parabolic mirror, though these are the most often presented options. Even the most illiterate peasant would likely have called bullshiat, and yet this account was treated as history, not myth for thousands of years. Even in the 12th century, and again in the 18th and even today, learned people are trying to figure out how it could have been done on the assumption that it MAY HAVE ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

"In 1973 a Greek scientist, Dr. Ioannis Sakkas, became curious about whether Archimedes could really have used a "burning glass" to destroy the Roman fleet and set up an experiment involving 60 Greek sailors each using an oblong 3' by 5' flat mirror to focus light on a wooden rowboat 160 feet away. According to sources he had no problem getting the wood to catch fire very quickly."

"In 2009, as an exercise in design, a class at MIT decided to try and reproduce the Archimedes weapon using 127 one foot by one foot mirrors. They were successful in getting a mocked up ship made out of red oak to start burning after ten minutes of exposure to direct sun."

I am MORE curious about the phenomenon whereby a patently absurd weapon, which has not been credibly reproduced in over two thousand years, persists as a possibly plausible weapon which people keep trying to "figure out" for thousands of years. It can't possibly work, and yet....
 
2013-09-03 04:01:49 PM

jst3p: huntercr: Voiceofreason01: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: The Mythbusters never "bust" anything but their own ineptitude.


/Old Episodes of Mr Wizard basically cover the same ground. Mr. Wizard's intended audience was squarely aimed at children though... rather than adults that think that Big Bang theory is really funny becuase.. you know... science!

Big Bang theory is very funny because they have great writers and an ensemble cast that "works". Your comment is like saying "Cheers" was funny because.. you know...  beer! I demand you retract your disparaging remark.


come on now...  be honest. The show is only the lightest of science/nerd/geek concepts/terminology and language. It's devoid of any real collegiate nerd/geek/science culture. It's so frequently the "least common denominator" humor ( but science! )  it's a little sad.
I challenge you to alternate episodes of "That 70's show" and "Big Bang Theory".
Try to spot the similarities...if you strip away the light surface of character background and tack on quirks, I have a hard time telling them apart.

I guess the thing about BBT that disappoints me is that it doesn't seem to even try to embrace real geekdom, or universe of wonderfully eccentric people in the world of hard science majors...  What they do do, seems so... hollow.  Granted, It is a sitcom and is  expected to keep the laughs running, but this   It's an area ripe for fantastic comedy and yet to me there's more true nerd/geek in any given old episode of News Radio than most episodes of BBT.
 
Displayed 50 of 395 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report