Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tae Bo Workout Sent Skyscraper Shaking

Unknown Lamer posted more than 3 years ago | from the kick-punch-destroyskyscraper dept.

Technology 107

MiniMike writes "According to CNN: 'Seventeen people performing a vigorous Tae Bo workout caused tremors that forced the evacuation of a South Korean skyscraper earlier this month, the building's owners say. Scientists recreated the event in the 12th floor gym, according to a report in the Korea Times.' I don't know which is scarier, that they made such a flimsy skyscraper, or the sight of 17 scientists doing a Tae Bo workout. Hopefully they're better at it than the scientists I've seen in the gym."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

resonance (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816262)

Heh, they accidentally hit a resonance frequency?
After (admittedly) doing tonnes of calculations, the actual fix is typically very simple adding weights or some other form of damper to correct parts of the building).

Re:resonance (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816312)

"I've got THE POWER!" [youtube.com]

Re:resonance (2)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36818432)

A bunch of Koreans doing Tae Bo while listening to Snap and collapsing a skyscaper around themselves would definitely get my vote for most amusing tragedy of the decade.

Re:resonance (3)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817052)

I wonder what the Mythbusters will say in regards to their "Marching In-step over a Bridge" episode. I was one of several to speak up and AFAIK they never addressed resonance. I said the same thing about their Tesla Earthquake Machine episode except I pointed out that these earthquake machines are used in demolition to this very day; I got the same lack of response.

Re:resonance (4, Funny)

DeathElk (883654) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817364)

They're obviously having too much fun blowing shit up to worry about responding to your points.

Re:resonance (1)

thecountryofmike (744040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817908)

Marching in-step over a bridge...I remember that episode well..

They built a suspension bridge. Then promptly neglected to SUSPEND the damn thing. The main cables were simply attached to the ends, but it wasn't a cable-stayed design. It was meant to be anchored to the ground! It could barely support itself much less resonate.

MythMorons

Re:resonance (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36818468)

I wonder what the Mythbusters will say in regards to their "Marching In-step over a Bridge" episode. I was one of several to speak up and AFAIK they never addressed resonance. I said the same thing about their Tesla Earthquake Machine episode except I pointed out that these earthquake machines are used in demolition to this very day; I got the same lack of response.

The problem seem to be that you are under the impression that Mythbusters is something other than an entertainment TV show.

Re:resonance (2)

Shark (78448) | more than 3 years ago | (#36819144)

The problem seem to be that you are under the impression that Mythbusters is something other than an entertainment TV show.

Apparently [nextbigfuture.com] that's enough credentials for the US military... And I'm not trying to prove you wrong here. I'm baffled by it.

Re:resonance (0)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36820858)

That isn't about believing the show's results, that's about the people doing the show being genuine special effects experts who (despite how they make it look on the show) know a thing or two about safety.

Re:resonance (1)

Cant use a slash wtf (1973166) | more than 3 years ago | (#36820928)

Although the show does its best to hide it, Jamie Hyneman is actually an incredibly smart man with amazing credentials scientifically. I doubt the fact that he was a part of Mythbusters really had anything to do with his selection for the making of this armor. If you actually RTFA that you linked, it explicitly states "This is not Hyneman's first work with the military", implying they actually hired him because he was the man for the job, not just because somebody in the Army likes Mythbusters.

Re:resonance (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36822050)

Exactly right! Mythbusters is purely for entertainment. Both of those guys readily admit it. There simply isn't enough time in a day to properly and stringently follow the scientific method for the shows they must pump out. As such, they rarely are very scientific.

IMOHO, aside from the basic entertainment value provided by Mythbusters, their primary merit is that it allows people to understand they can apply some of the lessons learned from their science class to solve and/or explore real world problems, even if you don't rigorously apply the scientific method in doing so. Science can be fun. That message alone is worth something.

Re:resonance (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36821994)

Thinking of Mythbusters as uneducated entertainment is a must. They get far more wrong then right. Frequently its completely bad science. Commonly they reproduce something which is well documented to have happened and their "validation" is somehow anything other than confirmed.

If you ever watch Mythbusters expecting good science, you're doing it wrong. Mythbusters is entertainment clothed in a lab coat.

Re:resonance (1)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36823100)

I agree fully. As a matter of fact it was the earthquake machine episode that turned me completely off to them since I knew for a fact that the damn machine not only existed but was in "popular" use.

Re:resonance (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817072)

Assuming synchronized rhythmic movements if 17 people (total weight probably over a ton) I would be surprised if a lot of buildings didn't sway a little depending on where the weight was being thrown about. They were located one third of the tower, and a ton is a lot of weight. By the time even a slight movement was propagated to the top floors it could be a significant movement. I doubt this is as accidental as it sounds.

The flexibility of the building might be a key part of its earthquake protection, and it probably doesn't need fixing.

Re:resonance (1)

cffrost (885375) | more than 3 years ago | (#36818176)

The flexibility of the building might be a key part of its earthquake protection, and it probably doesn't need fixing.

True points, though both safety and comfort can be improved with the addition of one or more tuned mass dampers. [wikimedia.org]

Re:resonance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36818530)

17 Americans an easy ton, in-fact you can calibrate your scales to that, South Koreans? not a chance over 500kilos...

Re:resonance (1)

Tuidjy (321055) | more than 3 years ago | (#36819100)

I do not think a kilo means what you think it means,

Seventeen young kids may add up to 500kg. Seventeen adults will be significantly more. They would have to weight 65 pounds on average,

Re:resonance (1)

dougmc (70836) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817814)

Yes, but tall buildings sway all the time in heavy winds. I'll bet the effect was pretty small ...

Re:resonance (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36818052)

Yes, but tall buildings sway all the time in heavy winds. I'll bet the effect was pretty small ...

When I used to work about 1/4 of the way down from the top of a skyscraper in Chicago, sometimes on windy days your coffee would slosh over the top of your cup (if the cup was pretty full). I wouldn't call that effect "pretty small". It was DEFINITELY noticeable.

please... (1)

Aeros (668253) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816278)

please have video. This has got to be funny!

Precedented... (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816280)

Korea's got a dramatic history [wikimedia.org] with such things. 500 people died in that one.

Re:Precedented... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816390)

I think you mean 501 people...

Re:Precedented... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816444)

I think you mean 501 people...

I didn't say only 500.

Not even remotely related (5, Informative)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816478)

The article concerns a workout which happened to hit the resonant frequency of the structure, which was properly designed. The failure you linked to had to do with criminal negligence by the owners ignoring repeated engineering and construction firms who refused to accept design changes driven by greed (and were fired for it), completely repurposed building usage leading to gross overloading of the structure's strength, and then completely incompetent handling of obvious signs of structural failure (failure to immediately evacuate the building.) For fuck's sakes, they removed columns for escalators, then cut into the remaining columns, then ADDED A STORY WITH POURED CONCRETE FLOORS *and* an air conditioning unit the building wasn't designed for. And then when the building started to fail, they just blocked off areas to hide it from customers because they didn't want to lose sales revenue.

Re:Not even remotely related (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816642)

Not even remotely related

Failure to include a correctly functioning resonance damper [wikimedia.org] is still negligence.

RTFA (2)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816738)

Did you read the article? The resonance could only be felt on one very narrow range of floors. The whole building wasn't shaking, which is what tuned-mass and active dampers are designed for. They're for countering earthquakes, wind-induced vibrations, etc.

Re:RTFA (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817836)

Did you read the article? The resonance could only be felt on one very narrow range of floors

So, are you trying to imply that it wasn't a danger? Because otherwise you seem to be saying, "Oh well! Who could have expected a structural engineer to anticipate a problem like this!?"

Re:RTFA (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 3 years ago | (#36818098)

Did you read the article? The resonance could only be felt on one very narrow range of floors

So, are you trying to imply that it wasn't a danger? Because otherwise you seem to be saying, "Oh well! Who could have expected a structural engineer to anticipate a problem like this!?"

Yes. That's precisely what he was saying: there's no reason to believe there was actually any danger. Sure, it was an unexpected issue the engineers probably never considered, but the point of the article is that it's been tested and is believed to be safe.

The real question is, what are you trying to imply?

Re:RTFA (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36818182)

Sure, it was an unexpected issue the engineers probably never considered, but the point of the article is that it's been tested and is believed to be safe.

Did you RTFA? The article doesn't say anything of the sort. It doesn't comment either way, but it certainly doesn't even imply "no big deal." What it does do is say that even some expert disagree with the current diagnosis.

The real question is, what are you trying to imply?

That having a stick up your ass about resonance is missing the forest for the trees. Bad engineering is bad engineering, no matter the form.

Re:RTFA (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 3 years ago | (#36818320)

So, I'm no expert here, but is it REALLY possible to design a building which does not resonate at any frequency?

Re:RTFA (3, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36818392)

So, I'm no expert here, but is it REALLY possible to design a building which does not resonate at any frequency?

You need a way to dump the energy into some other form, there are multiple ways of doing that, I linked to one in an earlier post. You don't have to dump all of the energy, just enough to prevent it from becoming structurally dangerous within certain margins. I think it is entirely reasonable to expect a building to avoid shaking 19 floors because about 10 people are jumping around. It isn't like they are putting a whole lot of energy into the structure to begin with.

Re:Not even remotely related (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816832)

Tesla [wikipedia.org] would have been proud of these guys.

myth busters claims to have busted that, too (1)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 3 years ago | (#36820652)

And myth busters claims to have busted that one, too, according to your link.

I guess the mythbusters crew have never spent much time in buildings from the 19th century.

(At least, I would hope it was negligence. But reading what mythbusters has said about vibrating buildings, they've just lost a lot of what cred they had with me.)

Re:Not even remotely related (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36817390)

[[...of the structure, which was properly designed]]

Citation needed. Who has determined that this structure was properly designed? The people who designed it? The builders who probably don't know any better, notwithstanding whether they actually built it to the design?

Re:Precedented... (2)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816512)

The US does too [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Precedented... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816752)

That wasn't resonance either. That was basic load failure.

Re:Precedented... (1)

danbert8 (1024253) | more than 3 years ago | (#36822726)

No, that was an ill thought out field change from the original design.

Re:Precedented... (1)

cusco (717999) | more than 3 years ago | (#36819844)

I'm impressed. The building owner got a year in prison for every 70 dead. In the US he probably would have gotten a suspended sentence or house arrest.

Re:Precedented... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36820448)

the video link to youtube dont work in the article cus some darn yankee tosser has had it blocked .

Now we know (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816282)

Tesla's earthquake machine was an exercise routine?

Re:Now we know (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36818472)

>>Tesla's earthquake machine was an exercise routine?

He had The Power.

Re:Now we know (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36819222)

Somebody around here doesn't like Tesla, almost every Tesla related post has been down-modded.

yes (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816292)

insult the scientists that are trying to determine the problem and get data.. scientist don't work out well in the gym! kek., where better then they are. kek
.

Re:yes (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816410)

Just the usual preemptive-defensive reaction of another code monkey that finally realized that his computer "science" 101 course didn't really make him a scientist. Nothing to see here, just part of the new anti-intellectual slashdot of this decade.

Re:yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36820136)

Just the usual preemptive-defensive reaction of another code monkey that finally realized that his computer "science" 101 course didn't really make him a scientist. Nothing to see here, just part of the new anti-intellectual slashdot of this decade.

Computer science is a (formal) science the same way mathematics is.

Re:yes (3, Informative)

MiniMike (234881) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816778)

OP here. The end of my submission, where I include that IAAS (scientist), was cut off, so I would like to state that I wasn't trying to convey a "where (sic) better than they are" attitude. I could have stated my intent with the last surviving sentence more clearly. While many scientists I see in the gym are in great shape, some of them are in quite poor shape and uncoordinated. The ones at that end of the spectrum are usually in the beginner group exercise classes. It is that group I was trying to reference in the post. The last sentence should have read 'some of the scientists'. Hope this clears it up.

It's that bridge all over again (2)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816306)

The doom of resonant frequency.

Re:It's that bridge all over again (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816386)

Which bridge? The Tacoma Narrows Bridge, that shook itself apart, is one famous example, but it's not the only one. The Millennium Bridge in London had a similar problem. If people walked across it at a normal walking pace, their footsteps were at the bridge's resonant frequency. Worse, when a bridge starts to resonate like that, people naturally start walking in sync with the vibrations, making it worse. It cost £5m to fix - over 25% of the original construction cost.

Re:It's that bridge all over again (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816572)

yea, its really more like the millennium bridge. The Tacoma Narrows bridge problem was caused by the cross wind if I recall correctly.

Re:It's that bridge all over again (2)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816944)

yea, its really more like the millennium bridge.

Yes.

The Tacoma Narrows bridge problem was caused by the cross wind if I recall correctly.

And by a design of some windbreak structures on the sides of the bridge that caused the twisting motion of the bridge, once the resonance was being pumped up, to modulate the crosswind airflow over the bridge in a way that pumptd the resonance further.

It was essentially a vibratory wind turbine. It failed when the wind down the narrows was finally high enough to pump energy into the resonance faster than the bridge's internal friction at high excursions damped it.

Re:It's that bridge all over again (1)

sp0tter (1456139) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817186)

appreciate the figures. I cannot help but wonder how exactly does one alter the resonance frequency of a structure? I take it is an expensive undertaking.

Re:It's that bridge all over again (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817320)

A dampening system can be added, which might take the form of a weight attached by springs. The dampener lowers the amplitude of oscillations, and also happens to lower the resonant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuned_mass_damper [wikipedia.org]

Re:It's that bridge all over again (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817354)

heh, meant to write "a damper lowers".......they don't use wet washcloths 8D

Re:It's that bridge all over again (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36821332)

Ugh thank you. They say this stuff on SciFi (or is it SyFy) all the time and I never see rain. Dampening field indeed.

Re:It's that bridge all over again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36817466)

Millienium Bridge - ah but it wasnt a problem Londoners are all effete southners so they mince across and the problem was solved.

Re:It's that bridge all over again (2)

dotbot (2030980) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817580)

Interestingly, for the Millennium Bridge, it wasn't actually the frequency of people's footsteps that caused the problem. (This can be a problem when people step in time and some other London bridges have signs that troops should break time.) The main issue with the Millennium Bridge was that the resonance was lateral, i.e. side to side, which was not well known about, and there was positive feedback: small lateral movements, within normal limits, became amplified because the way people naturally corrected their balance induced the resonant frequency. I haven't read enough about this topic to know whether there was any positive feedback, i.e. whether the movement of the building was affecting their Tae Bo workout (or other people in the building) which in turn amplified the tremors.

Re:It's that bridge all over again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36819324)

Worse, when a bridge starts to resonate like that, people naturally start walking in sync with the vibrations, making it worse.

Is this because bridge walkers have a death wish?
Fucking poor ass pedestrians who can't get a lift.

Whoops (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816310)

Apparently we have learned nothing from Galloping Gertie [wikipedia.org] ?

No wait, some of us have. Mythbusters proved [wikipedia.org] that properly designed modern bridges aren't anywhere near as susceptible to forced resonance anymore.

Re:Whoops (2)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816394)

I was going to post the same Wikipedia article, but then I read it and learned that the failure wasn't cause by resonance (resonance frequency of the bridge was ~1Hz, but the oscillations occurred at ~.2Hz). The Discovery channel taught me wrong but hey, at least I learned something new today.

Re:Whoops (3, Informative)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816776)

Too bad you learned something wrong.

Galloping Gertie was brought down by aeroelastic flutter, aka forced resonance. Aeroelastic flutter is more specific, but not a correction.

Galloping Gertie was visibly resonant in its second harmonic, in torsion. Structures have more then one resonance frequency. All those frequencies have harmonics.

Re:Whoops (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816420)

Galloping Gertie was a wind problem, it acted as a wing

Re:Whoops (2)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816588)

First, you and MozeeToby are both correct. However it's also true that Galloping Gertie was used for decades as an object lesson for the problems resonance can cause in large engineering works. Even though the attribution of the fault was (somewhat) incorrect, we still learned something from it that was entirely correct when applied appropriately, something that apparently _wasn't_ applied in this case.

Second, and maybe i'm wrong here, but as best as i can understand from the complicated physics the problem with Galloping Gertie wasn't a simple case of "elementary forced resonance." However it was still a case of resonance, just really complicated resonance. From the wikipedia page on Aeroelasticity [wikipedia.org] : "These interactions may become smaller until a condition of equilibrium is reached, or may diverge catastrophically if resonance occurs." So to my mind the real lesson from Galloping Gertie was that you can't just account for elementary resonance, you have to account for all possible sources of resonance. In this case however they didn't even take care of the elementary kind.

Re:Whoops (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817020)

What I find absolutely amazing is that we can have conversations like this about frequencies and harmonics, elementary resonance, complicated resonance from multiple sources, etc. and yet we still cannot create a system where you understand the person taking your order for a simple burger and fries without having them repeat themselves and screaming into the loud speaker .

Re:Whoops (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817148)

and yet we still cannot create a system where you understand the person taking your order for a simple burger and fries without having them repeat themselves and screaming into the loud speaker .

Sure we can; it's called "don't go through the drive-through".

I could name off at least 3 different ways to fix the problem you're bitching about, but nobody really cares enough to go to the expense of implementing them. The newer generations of smart-phones - with "swipe" payment and data-sharing abilities - open up some interesting possibilities, but it's still going to take time.

Re:Whoops (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816734)

Galloping Gertie was a wind problem, it acted as a wing

If they had harnessed the wind, then it might have damped the bridge.

In any event there was a cable intended to stop the problem, and it was broken.

Not Skyascrapah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816322)

That power of Tae Bo!

kekekekeke

Resonance? (1)

vikisonline (1917814) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816330)

Interesting. If this is true they were probably moving in sync, and accidentally matched the resonant frequency of the building. It was a similar problem with that wobbly bridge that collapsed shortly after completion, but that was resonating from the wind. Whats interesting is that they managed to do this from the 12th floor of the building. It must not have very good resonant properties. Luckily wind rarely buffets or changes at such a quick frequency, so they are safe from that, but I would really worry about even very minor quakes.

Re:Resonance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816414)

I worked in an office building in San Ramon, California on the 4th (top) floor. It had such resonance problems that someone walking down the hall would make people think there was an earthquake. Actual earthquakes (even small 3.0 ones) felt like massive earthquakes. That building freaked me out. It was built in the 80's in a wealthy area (Bishop Ranch) and I assume it's up to code.

Harmonic Resonance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816354)

Finished the TFA (which barely qualifies as an article). The result was harmonic resonance associated with the workout. Flimsy skyscraper my eye. Although buildings should be built to dampen these sorts of effects, it's not like it was a rickety tower about to fall on a small Italian town. Only thing that surprised me was that CNN actually had the information regarding the cause in their coverage. Of course it was in the form of direct quotes so take it as you will.

Proof. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816366)

All you Tae Bo haters get the heck out of the room! This is proof positive that Tae Bo practitioners can destroy buildings! AARRGH!

How Big? (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816378)

Were these 17 people?

Re:How Big? (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817506)

They're Korean, so chances are, not very.

That's nothing. (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816388)

Chuck Norris once did a kung-fu workout, on January 17th, 1994 in Northridge, California.

Re:That's nothing. (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816488)

I hear he's also a taekundo master, the korean kungfu. Coincidence? I think not..

Jack Bauer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36817036)

Chuck Norris wears Jack Bauer pajamas.

Re:Jack Bauer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36817156)

They aren't pajamas.

Ob. xkcd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816404)

http://xkcd.com/228/

Scientists are bad at the gym? (2)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816470)

Scientists are bad at the gym? Is that a stereotype? Never heard that before. I know some marathon-running, rock-climbing scientists that would probably take issue with that.

Re:Scientists are bad at the gym? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816514)

Well, how else are you going to test athletic shoes?

Re:Scientists are bad at the gym? (1)

city (1189205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816630)

Surely your anecdotes will refute generations of unathletic nerdery... (braces for downmods...)

Re:Scientists are bad at the gym? (1)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816682)

nerd = scientist?

Re:Scientists are bad at the gym? (1)

Xenx (2211586) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817236)

I believe the intent was, scientist = nerd. A subtle difference, that wouldn't exist mathematically.

Re:Scientists are bad at the gym? (0)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816818)

Gah it's one of those anti-stereotype people. You shouldn't reject humor, even mediocre or bad humor, under the grounds of playing at stereotypes. The thing with Stereotypes is only an idiot would think they are 100% accurate, but it's equally silly to not to note and laugh at things when they do tend to cover 60% or more of a particular race/profession etc... There's a few tigers that are rather friendly around humans, but it isn't insensitive to the creatures to run like hell if you see one, nor is it insensitive to joke about it.

Re:Scientists are bad at the gym? (2)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817572)

Scientists are bad at the gym? Is that a stereotype? Never heard that before. I know some marathon-running, rock-climbing scientists that would probably take issue with that.

Sure, and I know some slashdot readers who actually RTFA, but we're talking general trends here!

That's why (1, Funny)

slapout (93640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816578)

That's why Chuck Norris and Jackie Chan don't usually workout together.

Re:That's why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816958)

Did you see what Chuck Norris and Bruce Lee did to the Roman Coliseum?

Re:That's why (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817362)

I knew their acting couldn't bring down the house.

Not Flimsy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36816590)

Skyscrapers are designed to sway with rather than resist earthquakes.

Bring him in. (3, Funny)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816666)

Have they questioned this guy [suavv.com] yet?

Re:Bring him in. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36820414)

Birry Brinks of Brinks Security Systems is here to help,
unlike BIlly Blanks the wrecker of flabby buildings.

Funny how these two men have been accused by all to be in the same place at once, but none could split the Tie to say whether he is more helpful or more lethal. Only someone like Chuck Norris could separate this kind of marriage between light and darkness, perhaps by himself entering a session of Tae Bo.

They can to Hertza Haeon... (1)

Fned (43219) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816670)

...with meat bodies?!??!!

Re:They can to Hertza Haeon... (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817312)

No mod points, but +1 for Gunnm LO reference.

Incidentally... (1)

bluemonq (812827) | more than 3 years ago | (#36816764)

Billy Blanks is no longer allowed in South Korea.

Re:Incidentally... (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817608)

Billy Blanks is no longer allowed in South Korea.

Because he is a house wrecker?

Blahbalicious documented this long ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36817234)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHUw7nS8Q7w&fmt=18

Cue the ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#36817270)

... "Yo mama's so fat" jokes in 3 ... 2 ... (brace yourself) 1 ...

The car is much safer !!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36817504)

I just want to buy the car they make!

Corruption in S. Korea (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36817940)

There are many building codes in S. Korea and local officials want bribes to look the other way. Even if you build by the letter, they will find some technicality or make one up to delay the construction. Any delay costs lot of money so most developers just pay the bribe.

Korea is a lovely country but sadly it is infected with corruption like most of Asia.

P.S. I know this because my in-law is one of those corrupt official in S. Korea. She wasn't even embarrassed about it either.

This is what probably brought down WTC7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36820034)

This is what probably brought down WTC7, you know. It's not a joking matter.

Happened in my city recently too (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36820732)

Not the first time such things have happened:

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/zumba-class-has-office-all-shook-up-20110224-1b73p.html [smh.com.au]

A Zumba class in a building only a block away from where I work caused noticeable movement in that building, so much so that some people were afraid for their safety. Of course, the building was up to code and engineers reported that nothing was wrong, but still, interesting...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?