×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

284 comments

"Rigorous peer review" (4, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143073)

Glad I'm not one of Dr. David Shechner's peers, then. Although from the sound of things he must not have many left!

Re:"Rigorous peer review" (2)

Starteck81 (917280) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143111)

Glad I'm not one of Dr. David Shechner's peers, then. Although from the sound of things he must not have many left!

At least not any smart ones!

Re:"Rigorous peer review" (0, Offtopic)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143357)

In the September 2011 issue of Wired that rests happily on the top of my shitter, there is a description of a paper written by Economist Paul Krugman called The Theory of Interstellar Trade, [wikipedia.org] which states that empires cannot work on a galactic scale due to the fact that round trips of several hundred years are likely, even at speeds close to the speed of light. Food spoils. Natural resources aren't worth the energy it takes to transport them. Colonies can't be governed.

The paper ignores other sci-fi contructs like wormholes and hyperspace, which are considered Bantha poodoo.

Re:"Rigorous peer review" (4, Informative)

jackbird (721605) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143741)

You forgot to include the actual paper [princeton.edu] , although your comment also appears to state that you haven't actually read it. It's chock-full of bad puns.

Re:"Rigorous peer review" (1, Offtopic)

aiht (1017790) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143819)

... The Theory of Interstellar Trade, ...

Is the acronym intentional, I wonder...?
And no, I do not mean TTOIT.

Re:"Rigorous peer review" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39144067)

The paper ignores other sci-fi contructs like wormholes and hyperspace, which are considered Bantha poodoo.

By whom? Many of the top minds in astrophysics consider those areas of research to be entirely valid.

What this really means (5, Funny)

Manuka (4415) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143097)

Is that he denied the Mythbusters a chance to go nuclear.

Re:What this really means (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143465)

Well in his defense, after the cannonball shoot, the SF bomb squad wasn't inclined to let them field test that idea on their demolitions grounds either :D

Re:What this really means (5, Funny)

Manuka (4415) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143515)

I'm sure they can find some small pacific atoll that nobody wants anymore. Maybe do it in conjunction with Shark Week. Maybe you can jump sharks AND hide in fridges all at once.

Re:What this really means (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143701)

Tonight on Mythbusters... Can you survive while swimming with a shark in a fridge full of water, during a nuclear blast?

Re:What this really means (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143891)

Jamie wants BIG boom.

Trauma (5, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143099)

Forget the radiation and heat. The trauma from the g-forces of that flight and landing would have killed anyone easily.

Re:Trauma (3, Insightful)

thereitis (2355426) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143261)

And let's not forget we're talking about "surviving" afterward - that could mean living the rest of your life in an ICU. Indiana Jones not only survived but kicked some serious ass the same day.

Re:Trauma (2)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143347)

Indiana Jones is immortal

Harrison Ford is just OLD

Dammit, I was hoping to see a few dozen more movies by him.

Re:Trauma (5, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143849)

I think Indiana Jones was only immortal while he was in that temple. In the Young Indiana Jones serial in the '80s, he was depicted with...OMG I'm such a dork.

George Lucas. (3, Funny)

Chas (5144) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143109)

The only thing George is an expert on is MOICHANDISING!

But, if you're about to suffer the effects of a close range nuclear detonation, you could do worse... At least this way you'll feel proactive about avoid death as you die horribly.

Re:George Lucas. (1)

Apothem (1921856) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143907)

Who knows, if he had actually been right, he probably would have started 'MOICHANDISING!' the type of fridge they they used in the movie to live through the explosion.

Then let's test these next (5, Funny)

davidbrit2 (775091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143129)

  1. Ripping out a man's heart without killing him.
  2. Jumping from a plane using an air raft.
  3. Keeping an immortal knight in a subterranean cavern for thousands of years.

Or, how about just shut up and watch the movie.

Re:Then let's test these next (1)

readandburn (825014) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143213)

Jumping from a plane using an air raft.

I get your point, but Mythbusters did this one and it was plausible IIRC.

Re:Then let's test these next (3, Informative)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143221)

  1. Ripping out a man's heart without killing him.
  2. Jumping from a plane using an air raft.
  3. Keeping an immortal knight in a subterranean cavern for thousands of years.

Or, how about just shut up and watch the movie.

Mythbusters already busted [mythbustersresults.com] that middle one. I'd like to see them test the ripping out a man's heart one, though I'm not sure PETA will appreciate them testing on live animals.

Re:Then let's test these next (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143343)

They could do it in China... I'm sure they could come up with someone waiting to be executed whom they need to make a serious public spectacle out of (bonus points to the condemned if, when his heart is being pulled out of his chest, yells the Mandarin equivalent of "Freeeedommmmmm!!!gaaakkkgakkk")

Re:Then let's test these next (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143345)

Simple, use politicians and lawyers. I think to be certain we need to try it on at least 10 thousand.

Re:Then let's test these next (5, Funny)

Alotau (714890) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143493)

I'd like to see them test the ripping out a man's heart one, though I'm not sure PETA will appreciate them testing on live animals.

Simple, use politicians and lawyers. I think to be certain we need to try it on at least 10 thousand.

Your subjects are flawed... one needs a heart in the first place to have it ripped out.

Re:Then let's test these next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143739)

Be a scientist: We won't know for certain till we reach in and pull out whatever we hold. I say we sample 20 thousand... just to be sure.

Re:Then let's test these next (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143351)

I'd like to see them test the ripping out a man's heart one,

Not something you do successfully in your average weird cultist temple, but this is done in heart transplants all the time...

Re:Then let's test these next (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143355)

Mythbusters already busted [mythbustersresults.com] that middle one. I'd like to see them test the ripping out a man's heart one, though I'm not sure PETA will appreciate them testing on live animals.

Hey, for the sake of scientific accuracy, the myth is ripping a MANS heart out without killing him, not some animals heart. I am not sure that PETA has any standing with that one...

Re:Then let's test these next (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143437)

Mythbusters already busted [mythbustersresults.com] that middle one. I'd like to see them test the ripping out a man's heart one, though I'm not sure PETA will appreciate them testing on live animals.

Hey, for the sake of scientific accuracy, the myth is ripping a MANS heart out without killing him, not some animals heart. I am not sure that PETA has any standing with that one...

Perhaps, for the sale of saving the life of an animal, a PETA member will volunteer for this experiment.

Re:Then let's test these next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143627)

Are you some kind of necrophile? I appreciate the nude PETA females much more when they're alive and shakin' it.

Re:Then let's test these next (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143617)

Well, a man is a living animal...

Re:Then let's test these next (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143767)

A case of accuracy though - All men are living animals. Not all living aminals are men.

C'mon, the folks here should be used to these sort of mistakes causing havok with solutions/research.

Re:Then let's test these next (1)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143403)

  1. Ripping out a man's heart without killing him.
  2. Jumping from a plane using an air raft.
  3. Keeping an immortal knight in a subterranean cavern for thousands of years.

Or, how about just shut up and watch the movie.

Mythbusters already busted [mythbustersresults.com] that middle one. I'd like to see them test the ripping out a man's heart one, though I'm not sure PETA will appreciate them testing on live animals.

PETA would, however, be totally fine with that experiment being performed on a human.

Re:Then let's test these next (5, Informative)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143681)

"JAT stewardess Vesna Vulovi survived a fall of 33,000 feet (10,000 m)[7] on January 26, 1972 when she was aboard JAT Flight 367. The plane was brought down by explosives over Srbská Kamenice in the former Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall [wikipedia.org]

Yes, not a rubber life raft, but it's not impossible to survive dropping out of the sky, just really freaking unlikely. Of course, that woman actually landed in part of the plane, broke her skull and was in a coma for 27 days. Probably not in a mood for serious ass kicking at that point, but she's no Indiana Jones either.

Re:Then let's test these next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143293)

Here here!

Re:Then let's test these next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143341)

It's actually "hear, hear".

Re:Then let's test these next (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143535)

There, there.

Re:Then let's test these next (5, Insightful)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143375)

Disbelief can only be suspended so far. The first and third items on your list were attributed to supernatural events, and the second, while implausible, was nowhere near as insane as the nuked fridge stunt. Granted, suspension of disbelief is an entirely personal thing, but for me, the other three movies only pushed the boundaries of reality enough to be entertaining, whereas the fourth movie completely obliterated it.

Re:Then let's test these next (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143417)

^This.

I'm willing to suspend disbelief and pretend that magic is real... but there's no way that "physics as normal" allows the fridge stunt to work.

Re:Then let's test these next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143865)

Not to mention that a couple of scenes prior to the atom bomb thing, Indy and one of his antagonists got in a head on collision while driving jeeps. Indy jumped out and he was fine, the antagonist stayed in his jeep. However, in the very next scene, the anagonist jumped into a new jeep and drove away with someone else after Indy. Now, I have never been in a nuclear blast but I have seen pictures, odds are there wouldn't have even been a refrigerator left, much less an archaeologist who survived in it. I have also been in minor car accidents, and have seen the aftermath of head on collisions. Even at 25 mph, a head on collision is not something that you just jump up and say "I'm fine", especially when you're not wearing your seat belt. I've never jumped out of a plane, taken someone's heart out, or been to Jordan [wikipedia.org] , so strictly speaking I can't comment on the plausibility of the way these things have been portrayed in the Indiana movies. But when you're at the point when you are openly defying my knowledge of how the world works within my realm of experience, it's just dumb.

Re:Then let's test these next (1)

davidbrit2 (775091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143733)

Okay, then how about we just go with "nearly every damn thing Indy does with his whip defies the laws of physics"? Ropes/whips do not work that way

Re:Then let's test these next (2)

izomiac (815208) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143691)

Suspension of disbelief has limits. Movie writers seem to rely on mass ignorance to stretch these limits. Nobody would accept a car chase that suddenly goes airborne because everybody knows that cars can't fly under their own power. That said, some things can be accepted as a visually appealing metaphor, such as banging at the keyboard to hack a computer.

Others, like being knocked out for half a day and actually waking up (and without brain damage no less), simply shows the writer knows nothing about the subject he's writing on. Once you realize the world doesn't follow the same laws as your own, and there is no predictable set of laws that it does follow, then most people lose interest. The semi-predictability is crucial. It's akin to the difference between a conversation and a random series of words. Or a protagonist which has 30 superpowers and solves every conflict by revealing a new one (deus ex machina).

Re:Then let's test these next (1)

alienzed (732782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143799)

Actually, myth busters did the raft from plane thing, if I remember correctly it actually sorta worked...

Re:Then let's test these next (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143947)

Ripping out a man's heart without killing him.

You do recall that the guy died moments later, don't you? There's nobody in the film running around, minus their heart. Besides, this was some supernatural cult thing. You could easily rationalize it as some form of slight of hand or mass hypnosis to impress the audience of followers. No comment about the rocks that burn on command...

Jumping from a plane using an air raft.

There's an outside possibility you'd survive. If you were sure you're going to die, I'm sure you'd try it... But I generally agree with you on this one. It was ridiculous, but not as bad as nuking the fridge, and it wasn't in a horrendous stinker of a film, so it can be forgiven.

Keeping an immortal knight in a subterranean cavern for thousands of years.

Well, if he's immortal, it goes without saying that he'd be fine... What's the problem? Are you suggest that, a dozen or so centuries on, he might just get up and wander off? Touche. That must be what all the traps were for...

Or, how about just shut up and watch the movie ?

Hell no! What a steaming pile that thing was. Makes T-3, the Star Wars prequals, and Die Hard 4 seem good by comparison, which isn't easy. It's the root-canal of films by washed-up old hacks.

Re:Then let's test these next (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143963)

Or, how about just shut up and watch the movie.

It was possible with the first three because they were entertaining. The fourth one wasn't, so the nitpickery is much more entertaining.

Re:Then let's test these next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39144043)

Or, how about just shut up and watch the movie.

I'm currently watching "Jeremiah" on hulu. 10 minutes ago I had to pause an episode because something didn't seem right. After a little math I figured that those 6 helicopters closing in on NORAD must have been doing better than 2,000 mph. No way!

This sounds like something made for TV.. (5, Funny)

rykin (836525) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143135)

Peer review? This is a job for the Mythbusters!
Let's see, we have a fridge, now we just need a nuclear testing facility!

Re:This sounds like something made for TV.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143297)

"Failure is always an option!" - Adam Savage

Shoulda put the webserver in the fridge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143195)

Shoulda put the webserver in that fridge instead - maybe then it could survive a slashdotting...

Re:Shoulda put the webserver in the fridge (1)

Jmanamj (1077749) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143275)

In actuality you need to put the server in a fridge AND detonate a nuke nearby to counteract some of the slashdotting effects.

Indie survived... (3, Funny)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143209)

... but the franchise didn't.

Does that make him "Schrodinger's Archaeologist?"

Re:Indie survived... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143353)

Only if jumping the shark made Fonzie "Shroedinger's Marine Biologist".

Re:Indie survived... (2)

mykepredko (40154) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143823)

Uhhmmm... Apparently Lucas is working on the screenplay to #5.

Indiana's death has been somewhat exaggerated...

myke

Overpressure effects? (1)

bejiitas_wrath (825021) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143265)

How high would the overpressure be under the nuclear blast? There would be a lot of pressure pushing on the fridge to blow it that far. And why was it lead lined? What would be the purpose of that in a commercial refrigerator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions_on_human_health#Blast_effects_-_the_initial_stage [wikipedia.org]

http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/IndianaJones3.htm [intuitor.com]

These links provide some food for thought.

Re:Overpressure effects? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143369)

How high would the overpressure be under the nuclear blast?

These links provide some food for thought.

So does the article - in fact it provides the actual numbers.

Wrong subject (5, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143277)

I, for one, wish they had peer reviewed THE SCREENPLAY.

What a shit movie that was.

Re:Wrong subject (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143427)

At least Lucas's movies have gotten to the point where if you're over 12 you know ahead of time that it's almost certainly going to suck (and you might go anyway), rather than have it be a surprise. He's saved me hours of time by not tempting me at all in the last 13 years.

Re:Wrong subject (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143507)

Personally, I'd put Temple of Doom as a worse movie. It was cringe worthy from start to finish. Whereas the last one I'd put at third word, since it was cringeworthy near the end. The refrigerator scene was implausable but still humorous and a fun way to start off the movie.

Re:Wrong subject (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143949)

When you talk about the end, do you mean the Alien bit? I don't see that having aliens in a movie is any worse than having a weapon of god, or a cult of evil magic, or yet another goblet with magical powers from god. All the movies have extranatural central elements.

What made the first movie so great was that there was a Quest with a satisfying ending. It also started with a mini-quest to set the scene. The other movies replaced some of the elements while keeping some others. The last one didn't really have a quest, it was more like a rescue mission, and it didn't have a mini-quest to begin with. Also the puzzles were quite weak, and without them it's just an action movie. But the Alien bit at the end I would classify as a pure Indiana Jones story element.

Place your bets (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143315)

George Lucas must be dumber than I thought if he really thought there was a 50/50 chance of survival. What kind of odds does he give for being in a fridge while it gets hit by a 18 wheeler going 70 mph? Gotta be a 80%+ chance of survival compared to the nuclear blast.

Re:Place your bets (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143383)

No he's not dumb. He realizes that if he says 50-50, then millions of people will believe him and tell everyone they know about this "fact" they have discovered. He's actually quite smart. Completely incorrect - but when did that ever get in the way of making a buck?

And you know what else has been nuked? (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143321)

The webserver!

Fall! Fall before the power of the Slash and the Dot!

HMBOOWAHAHAHAHA!

Survival not so good for TFA website: (2, Interesting)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143327)

( ! ) Fatal error: Out of memory (allocated 15728640) (tried to allocate 19456 bytes) in /var/www/overthinkingit.com/wp-includes/class-http.php on line 1358

Re:Survival not so good for TFA website: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143821)

Only 16 GB of RAM? I've got more than that in my toaster.

Successful test (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143411)

Out next experiment, called "nuking the server", was carried out successfully. Oh I love a good slashdotting in the evenings. Now, anyone care to calculate the temperatures on the server at this time?

George Lucas Statistics (1)

Jayfield (2317990) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143415)

Of course it's 50/50, either: A. You live, or B. You die You can't fault his reasoning. Unless you took a math class ever.

spoiler alert?!? (2)

phaserbanks (1977290) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143435)

Thanks for the spoiler, Slashdot.

Am I the only one who hasn't watched this supposed piece of crap movie?

Re:spoiler alert?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143599)

Spoiler?

The nuking the fridge was in the middle of the movie. Would you really expect Indiana to be killed in the middle of the movie? Especially by Spielberg - the God of Hollywood schmaltz?!

Re:spoiler alert?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143635)

If you haven't seen it by now, I suspect it's not even on your bucket list. Consider this the cliffs notes version.

No Problem (5, Funny)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143445)

It would be almost certain that Ford would survive a movie nuke in a prop refrigerator. Union rules specify that prop 1940s refrigerators weigh enough to require an entire crew to move. It was probably made of depleted uranium. As for the nuke, it was no more than 450 teraflops due to FX budget constraints. It takes at least an petaflop to kill an A-list movie star, and that is contractually stipulated.

Major Flaw with His Logic (1)

BBF_BBF (812493) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143451)

Dr. Shechner did not take into account the stereotypical rules for campy action movies in his analysis. That's a major flaw that invalidates his whole analysis. George Lucas on the other hand, is well acquainted with the rules and all his action movies follow them to a T.

Since Indy is the star of the action movie, he cannot die, unless it's a plot device where later in the movie he gets reanimated.

So even if Indy only had his signature Fedora and Leather Jacket and no fridge, he would have survived the blast with just a few scratches. QED

Not peer review (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143479)

One guy writing a "funny" article in which he is the third guy on a website to criticize some ideas and writes it sort-of in the style of a scientific peer review is not actually sending an idea around for scientific peer review. Headline and summary failure.

In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143689)

In other news, still no cures for cancer

Chuck Norris (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39143953)

wouldn't need a refrigerator.

Uh, why do we care about this again? (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 2 years ago | (#39143965)

So a director of fiction makes an absolutely absurd claim that can damn near be debunked with common sense, and someone with a doctorate degree (which I now question) feels the need to not only study this, but submit it for peer review?

Is the good doctor high on his own supply, or is this because it's George Lucas and therefore sensationalist attention-grabbing?

Uh, not to mention we're submitting a scenario for peer review that has likely NEVER happened and likely never will. I suppose the icing on the cake would be that this is a Government funded study...

Who gives a shit? (1)

Luke727 (547923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39144013)

Did you guys realize that George Lucas is giving the 3D treatment to all the Indiana Jones movies next? I am not joking. FUCK MY LIFE

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...