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!

The Mythbusters Answer Your Questions

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the poetry-in-motion dept.

580

Almost exactly a month ago we asked you for questions to put to the Mythbusters, hosts of the Discovery show that explores urban myth and legend. The response was huge, with dozens of worthwhile questions posted to the story. Today, we have answers back from Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage. They've obviously taken some time to answer your questions, and discuss everything from their shot at the moon to Creative Commons. Read on for their answers, and many thanks to both gentlemen for their thoughtful and interesting responses.Idea behind MythBusters? by hal2814
Did you guys come up with the idea for the show or was it presented to you? How did the two of you end up as the shows hosts? How did the 'Build Team' get involved?

ADAM SAVAGE -- MythBusters was created by Peter Rees. Peter produced the show "Beyond 2000" out of Australia, and had interviewed Jamie and I about a robot we had in the original "Robot Wars" (before Battlebots - remember?) back in the mid-90s. Apparently a good producer never throws away a telephone number, because in the spring of 2002, he called up Jamie and asked him if he had an interest in hosting this show he was trying to cast for (MythBusters). Jamie called me, we sent in a demo reel, and apparently they loved it. "These were just the geeks we were looking for" was what we heard back.

JAMIE HYNEMAN -- It was the idea of our producer, Peter Rees. He had interviewed me some years ago during "Robot Wars" when I had a notorious robot 'Blendo' which was instantly killing all the other robots. I was therefore somewhat notorious, so Peter spent a little time with me and when he had the idea to do the show he contacted me. I thought I could do the show but not carry it by myself, as I am not all that animated. I called Adam, who was an ex employee of mine and who was the liveliest FX guy I knew. We did a demo tape and the rest is history. The build team came as a result of the fact that the demand for the show is high, but as we do everything ourselves and don't just show up and talk, there is not enough time in a season for us to do all the shows they need - they wanted more builders. All three of the build team are people that Adam and I know well, and have worked with us in the past.

From the Front vs. From Behind? by unipus
Hey guys, great show! Just wondering, what's are the best and worst aspects of moving from behind the scenes to in front of the lens?

JAMIE HYNEMAN -- It's nice to be able to put your skills out there and be appreciated - if a tree falls down in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, did it make a sound? And then also the show allows us to do things we would never have the opportunity to experience otherwise, so it has been a wonderful education about the world at large. But personally I find the camera obtrusive and it gets in the way of my normal process. When I am at my best it is a situation where the rest of the world goes away and I am completely absorbed in designing something. Time stops. Nothing else Exists but the task in front of me. Now try to do that in front of a camera with a bunch of people around, having to repeat things so the camera can get it from different angles, and then stop and talk about it, and often have to truncate what you say so that you make a nice concise and clear statement about it..... and remember, I am a guy that does not normally talk much. Very disconcerting!

ADAM SAVAGE -- For me the best thing is that people are inspired by what we're doing. That was a result we never saw coming. There are times when I'm with my kids and people come up and don't know what to say, but really, we should all have such problems that folks are constantly wanting to tell you that they like your work. The hardest part is waiting for the camera. Jamie and I have to do things on the show super fast, and we do, but man, if we weren't shooting a show, it would go so much faster I swear. The rule is: if it doesn't happen on camera, it didn't happen. Sometimes when we're in the crunch, that can be very stifling. But again, we should all have such problems right?

Favorites? by MikesOnFire
What is your favorite Busted Myth and your favorite Confirmed one?

ADAM SAVAGE -- I've always been partial to the Penny Drop myth, i.e. will a penny dropped from the Empire State Building kill you when it hits the ground? To me, that was one of the most elegant and simple applications of science to a question that we've done. Until last week. We just worked on a myth called "bullets fired up" -- i.e., will a bullet fired directly vertically kill you when it comes back down. We did tons of research on it, and in the end, added significantly to the body of knowledge that's out there on the subject. I won't give away the ending, but we nailed this one.

JAMIE HYNEMAN -- There are no favorites! The myths are so varied in what they involve that it is comparing apples and oranges. Compare putting rockets on a full sized automobile that has been radio controlled and driven from a helicopter, to training goldfish. They are all interesting and fun - maybe some are more dangerous or exciting than others (like the rocket car), but then goldfish memory or failing a drug test by eating a poppyseed bagel is more relevant to real life.

Blown Away? by bobertfishbone
Have you ever been completely blown away by what you've found? Has there been an experiment where you two just sit back and say "Huh...who woulda thought?" Most of the myths are pretty easy to debunk, but I'm just curious as to whether or not there was actually one that you guys did that totally shocked you in being true.

ADAM SAVAGE -- We're constantly surprised by the results of what we're doing. Every day. There are countless times when we have what we think is a solid idea of what the outcome of one of our experiments will be, and the result is totally the opposite. That's probably one of the best parts of the job: being confounded by one result and coming up with a way to understand it, and to make it understandable within the confines of the show. The most surprising result? That would have to be "Liferaft Skydive." I wouldn't have bet in a million years that a raft would remain stable all the way down (from 3,000 feet!) and to see that raft, with Buster the crash-test dummy inside, float safely to the ground like a leaf. Amazing.

JAMIE HYNEMAN -- A total shock? I don't really think so -- I'm kind of philosophic about it. We are always learning new things as we shoot the show. For example, I did not know earlier that a hand gun bullet that is going relatively slowly will travel further through water than a bullet from a high powered rifle, because the rifle bullet is going so fast it just explodes from the impact and is stopped in a couple of feet. But that is just one factoid out of a thousand that we have run across in the course of doing our job. Pigs still generally don't fly.

Houston, we have a myth? by richdun
Assuming an unlimited budget, what myth would you most like to test? How about using 1960s technology to try and land on the moon?

JAMIE HYNEMAN -- You read our minds! On a side note; I once asked Adam if he was given a rocket ship and told he would be able to travel anywhere in the universe, but he would never be able to return, would he do it? Well, both of us would (but not together).

ADAM SAVAGE -- That's exactly what we want to do! Remember Salvage 1? The TV show with Andy Griffith about the guys who go to the moon with a ship they built in their garage? Jamie and I have done the research, and figured that the only way to end the debate about the "myth" of the Apollo moon landing is to go there, and bring back something that was left there during one of the Apollo moon landings.

Myths that didn't make it? by skywalker107
What Myths have you tested that have never made it on the show? What about them made you and the producers decide they didn't qualify to go on the air?

JAMIE HYNEMAN -- There are certain things that are not appropriate -- for example, myths with a highly sexual content. This is one side effect of the fact that the show seems to be popular with all ages and demographics, and that Discovery is a family oriented network.

Myths you cannot do? by jessejay356
Have there been any myths that were either too expensive or dangerous that you just couldn't get done?

ADAM SAVAGE -- We're relatively undaunted. We've found ways to do myths we thought impossible to do only months before. Besides going to the moon that is.

JAMIE HYNEMAN -- We usually figure out a way around that. This is where our particular skills come into play; a lot of what we do on the show can be done by the average Joe, but for the most part the average Joe would not be able to do it as fast, safe or inexpensively.

Bittorrent? by boatboy
Your show is available on bittorrent networks to download and watch when/where it's more convenient. Some users, however, could download the show without paying for it via cable service. How do you personally feel about this? (Cheated\Angry\Flattered\What's A Bittorrent?)

JAMIE HYNEMAN -- There will likely always be a certain amount of this kind of opportunism, and I suppose it will be self regulating to some degree. If there is too much, then quality programming will be reduced, and there will be nothing to steal. Other similar ways of avoiding commercials are also having this effect, and companies like mine are going to go out of business because the advertising revenues are being cut. Somebody has to pay for good programming, and if you cut out all the ads, and cut out the cable revenues, then you will end up with nothing but the kind of programming that is on public access stations, which is fine if that is what you happen to like, but limiting and a bit of a waste for a medium that is as powerful as TV.

ADAM SAVAGE -- Personally, I cannot condone the downloading of copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder. That being said, I look forward to a future where such a thing will be possible, and encouraged, and conducted in such a way that properly takes care of the needs of the artists, the distributors, AND the end users. We're not there yet, but Creative Commons is a step in the right direction to be sure.

working at M5? by kin_korn_karn
How do you recruit talent for M5? What qualifies someone to work there?

JAMIE HYNEMAN -- I pull people from the local talent pool on an as needed basis. Often by referrals from co workers or from ILM which is the only other significant shop in the Bay Area for our kind of work. I look for experience with a range of mediums, but otherwise I'm big on basic intelligence and work ethic. Putting together a crew is kind of like making soup: it's the combination of things that makes it work.

Injuries? by jacksonai
What is the worst injury anyone sustained while trying to bust a myth?

ADAM SAVAGE -- Besides a couple of stitch-worthy cuts that I've sustained, I'd say the greatest injury has been to my dignity when receiving a rectal thermometer during the "Goldfinger Revisit" myth.

JAMIE HYNEMAN -- So far we have only had minor cuts and scrapes. The worst of these was a broken finger sustained, ironically, by one of the crew when handling safety equipment; specifically the bullet resistant Lexguard panels we use which are quite heavy. We are becoming increasingly aggressive about maintaining safety on the show as over time -- as we are often replicating circumstances in which someone got hurt or killed, let's just say we have reason to be cautious.

Repeatable Experiments? by Aggrazel
I'm a father of a 7 year old who absolutely loves your show. We have it on our tivo and I'm constantly pausing the show to ask him what he thinks will happen in your experiments. You start every show with "Don't try this at home" but sometimes there are experiments that you do which you could probably try (safely) at home. Have you ever considered having a show where you say, "DO Try this at home?" Its fun to see my child get such a love of science in such a fun way.

ADAM SAVAGE -- That's a great idea! There's a book coming out next year called "MythBusters: Don't Try This at Home," that's actually about myths we did, and we offer ways that YOU can illustrate and test some of the concepts at home, safely.

JAMIE HYNEMAN -- The fact that young people are becoming interested in science as a result of the show is by far the biggest bonus for us, and one that took us by surprise as we had no intent that the show do this. However one of the reasons it has worked is that very fact that we are not really trying to be educational. We blow stuff up, we screw around. Adam puts things up his nose. Sometimes we do stuff just because we are curious. We are interesting to young people perhaps because we are a little bit out of control. Putting this into a context that you can do at home is a little difficult, and I would suggest that this be the realm of the parent, who in doing so will also learn and be all the more involved with the child, all in all a good thing. As long as the parent doesn't blow up or otherwise harm the child, which would, of course, be counterproductive.

Source Material? by DigitalSorceress
I've been a fan since your first season, and in that time, you've covered quite a few of the big, classic myths and legends. Are you ever concerned that you'll "use up" all the best source material, sort of running out of steam as it were? Or is the internet such a fertile ground for kooks and bad jokes that you figure you can go on indefinitely?

ADAM SAVAGE -- Every time I think we may be reaching the end of large scale, popular myths -- every time I can't imagine how we'll mine any more things to test out of the popular consciousness -- every time I think that we'll end up doing esoteric, historical myths at the end of the series' run (not that that's a bad thing), we come across something amazing, that nobody can believe we hadn't thought of before.

Fact vs Fun? by elrick_the_brave
When I watch your show, it's obvious that there is a lot of fun going on. Who wouldn't like blowing up, breaking down, stinking up, falling down, and all-around destroying everything? For those of us not of TV-land.. how long does it take for you guys to produce an average episode.. how much of it is fun vs time spent working on getting it right? What is the most tedious part of busting myths?

ADAM SAVAGE -- Normally, it takes us about a week to film a single myth. That's an average. We've done them in as little as a day, and taken as much as 3 weeks or more to complete the big ones (can anyone say "JetPack?"). It's not a contiguous week though. We'll work on one myth in the morning, a second after lunch, a third the next morning, and shoot blueprints for 4 or 5 myths in the afternoon. Since much of what we do requires elaborate research, not to mention extensive permits, safety forms, and insurance clearance, at any one time we might be working on 4 myths or more.

As for the fun/tedious quotient: it IS a lot of fun, no doubt, but it can also be very exacting work. One of the most frustrating things about doing the show happens to be the thing that's most fun about it: what we do rarely conforms to our expectations. We thought testing formulas for skunk removal would be simple. Get sprayed, clean it off. Turned out that just finding a skunk with full juice sacks during mating season was nearly impossible. Who would have thought that? And that's generally the rule: NOTHING is ever as simple as we think it's going to be. Really though, that's the most satisfying part too. When we beat our heads against the wall for a while, trying several different tacks towards a question, and then we achieve an elegant experiment and a bonafide result, those are the good days. And they far outnumber the bad days.

JAMIE HYNEMAN -- It takes about 3 weeks on average to do a show. While we do have fun from time to time, the bulk of my experience is worrying about keeping to the schedule, worrying about getting results, trying to keep people from getting hurt, cleaning up messes. We are in general cut up, bruised, achy from lifting, and stressed out. That being said I wouldn't trade the experience for anything, and Adam in particular is excited because he has an unlimited quantity of stories to tell at dinner parties.

Computer myths? by Short Circuit
Have you ever considered taking on some computer myths? Like whether or not it was ever possible for a virus to destroy old monitors?

ADAM SAVAGE -- The biggest problem with these for us is that they're not that visual. That being said, we've wanted for years to test different techniques for eliminating spam. Set up 2 brand new computers, hook them up to the internet, surf a little, and see what kind of spam they get. Then test to see what the actual real-world results of spam fighting techniques are (should you really click on those links that say they'll stop if you do?).

Fan science? by SilentChris
How often do fans question your results? Have you had any diehard science/physics freaks tell you you're wrong? Are there more "myth revisits" planned because of this feedback? How does it feel to have your decisions nitpicked?

ADAM SAVAGE -- Fans question our work all the time. Constantly. Fully 10% of the email I get is people telling me we got it wrong. I appreciate all the comments/criticism, etc., and much of the time, the criticism leads to a revisit, or a rethinking of our methodology. We don't claim to be infallible, and we're always totally willing to revisit our results. I like to think that places us in good company. The only criticisms I dislike are the ones that dispense with common courtesy. Sometimes I'll get just a sentence telling me that I'm an idiot, with no greeting and no signature. Jamie and I both read every email we get, we just don't have time to respond to them all.

JAMIE HYNEMAN -- We get grief from fans all the time. As far as I'm concerned, 'myths' are just an excuse for us to play around with things, and we have no corner on truth or science or anything like that. I am aware that good science doesn't work on a shoot schedule, no matter what. What I do like is the fact that the show is thought-provoking -- and if someone disagrees about a result, then great! It means people are thinking.

cancel ×

580 comments

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

Kari? (5, Funny)

fliplap (113705) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310806)

Wait, all this...and not a single Kari question?

Re:Kari? (3, Informative)

markild (862998) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310838)

Of course not!

She's not on to be all sciency and exploring.
She's on so that the nerds that find the experiments stupid has something to drool over.

Re:Kari? (1)

wang33 (531044) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310875)

Another question: How come Grant Kari and Tory(sp?) all are mentioned by name in the opening credits where it just used to be Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman? Did they threaten to go on strike or something?

Most shows do that (4, Insightful)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311013)

As the secondary characters get more screen time, their names appear in the main credits, even if they were not before.

You can see it in nearly all non-sitcom TV shows (it doesn't usually happen in sitcoms cause the characters rarely shift and change).

See the different seasons of the West Wing for example. There are people in the credits of later seasons that were not in earlier seasons, even though they were charachters in the shows. They are just more important later.

Re:Kari? (2, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310881)

Don't forget, CmdrTaco is already married to a hottie.

We should have an "Ask Taco's Wife" questionaire.

Re:Kari? (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310957)

Actually I can imagine that being rather interesting, in a very morbid kinda way.

Re:Kari? (5, Insightful)

jtorkbob (885054) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310923)

Oh, there's more to it than that. She's just as useful as anyone in the build team. In fact, her mechanical abilities are just as drool-provoking as her physical appeal, IMO.

Also, I don't think there are any nerds who don't either watch because they find the experiments fascinating, or watch so that they can critique the scientific method. Unless in your eloquence that's what you meant by "find the experiments stupid".

Re:Kari? (4, Funny)

ericdano (113424) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310950)

*wipes the slober away* Yup. I agree. She's the one to watch on the show. The SHARK week episode is very highly rated in my book ;-)

Re:Kari? (1)

midicase (902333) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311102)

My Kari Question: What is that tattoo on her lower right abdomen? Geeky and tattooed. Ahhhh...

Re:Kari? (5, Insightful)

trybywrench (584843) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310919)

Wait, all this...and not a single Kari question?
i think you mean "Scottie question". I mean come on, Scottie can weld! how fricken cool is that? i wonder if she likes perl poems..

oh yeah the interview, nice job guys. Thanks for the thorough answers!

Re:Kari? (5, Funny)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310992)

"i think you mean "Scottie question". I mean come on, Scottie can weld! how fricken cool is that? i wonder if she likes perl poems.."

I'd date Scottie...

*whistfully* ... but I'd be thinking of Kari!

Re:Kari? (1)

RespekMyAthorati (798091) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310945)

Ah yes! Every geeks dream: a hottie that is a geek herself. Sigh.

Re:Kari? (5, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310954)

Wait, all this...and not a single Kari question?

No, she is not going to visit you in your mother's basement. Or any basement for that matter.

Re:Kari? (4, Funny)

Squeezer (132342) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311063)

agreed. Kari was abosultly amazingly hot in that myth where they tested the silver powder the tin man from wizard of oz used. the myth was that it was itchy or something...anyway she was in this silver 2 piece bikini...omg! so hot, drool.....

IS IT A MYTH THAT I HAVE FP?????? (0, Troll)

JismTroll (588456) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310816)

lol HY LOL hy lol omg hy lol
Important Stuff

        * Please try to keep posts on topic.
        * Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
        * Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
        * Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
        * Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.

GoogleMyth! (-1, Troll)

TheUncleD (940548) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310826)

Nobody asked them the bust the myth that Google will soon be the controlling super power of the world.. or is it a myth..

Re:GoogleMyth! (1)

FellowConspirator (882908) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310934)

How is that a myth?

Re:GoogleMyth! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14311130)

Where's a "-1 Just Bloody Stupid" rating when I need it?

My question (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14310837)

What's with the beard? Are you hiding some kind of hideous scar?

You don't have a British accent. Why are your teeth so fucked up?

WMD in the middle east (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14310865)

Is it true there are WMD in Israel?

Re:WMD in the middle east (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14310936)

Moderator: Are you saying the post is off topic because it isn't a myth? Or are you just looking to avoid discussion about the topic of WMD myths? Or are you just looking to reduce the concept of mythbusting to things that don't embarass President Bush?

Re:WMD in the middle east (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14311088)

It's not a myth. Israel isn't a signatory to the NPT so isn't obliged to rid itself (or not develop) of Nuclear, Chemical or Biological weapons. The same applies to Pakistan and India. (By the way I'm English, and no fan of the the current American administration so have no political agenda here)

Posting as AC because it's totally off topic.

Re:WMD in the middle east (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14311109)

Maybe they just don't like your face.

Blendo... (3, Informative)

canning (228134) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310879)

In case you're like me and never watched "Robot Wars"

http://www.tectonic.force9.co.uk/bestbots.htm/ [force9.co.uk]
http://www.m5industries.com/html/press/sfweekly.ht m/ [m5industries.com]

Re:Blendo... (5, Informative)

Wabin (600045) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310931)

first, correct the links:

http://www.tectonic.force9.co.uk.nyud.net:8090/bes tbots.htm [nyud.net]
[m5industries.com] http://www.m5industries.com/html/press/sfweekly.ht m [m5industries.com]

But what I really want to know is whether Adam actually had anything to do with Blendo. Jamie gives him no credit, but he claims a bunch. One of them is being a bit arrogant...

Re:Blendo... (0)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310960)

the spelling in the sf weekly article is atrocious! (i don't claim to be a great speller, btw)

Quality TV will diminish? Huh? (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310880)

JAMIE HYNEMAN -- Other similar ways of avoiding commercials are also having this effect, and companies like mine are going to go out of business because the advertising revenues are being cut. Somebody has to pay for good programming, and if you cut out all the ads, and cut out the cable revenues, then you will end up with nothing but the kind of programming that is on public access stations, which is fine if that is what you happen to like, but limiting and a bit of a waste for a medium that is as powerful as TV.

Or, like they have been doing more and more, they are going to move to blatant advertising inside programs via product placement, discussions by characters about products and then linking outside-show ads to that, or making TV shows "commercial free" and "sponsored by Foo" (i.e. 24's season premeire a couple years ago -- which is one of the reasons I stopped watching the show).

The shows that have been doing this (Survivor, The Apprentice, etc) have done nothing but piss me off more than their existence already does. The fact that my wife watches them and I like to be w/her forces me to watch these programs. The blatant in-show advertising is actually starting to piss HER off. Want to alienate your viewership? Piss off those that actually wanted to watch your shows.

ADAM SAVAGE -- Personally, I cannot condone the downloading of copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder. That being said, I look forward to a future where such a thing will be possible, and encouraged, and conducted in such a way that properly takes care of the needs of the artists, the distributors, AND the end users. We're not there yet, but Creative Commons is a step in the right direction to be sure.

Sadly the networks cannot condone properly taking care of the needs of the end users. That wouldn't be fiscally responsible to their pockets.

Re:Quality TV will diminish? Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14310975)

50 years ago, there were giant Geritol ads all over television, and they were ON the host podiums of game shows, on the dinner tables of sitcom families, on the front desk of news programs. Why is it so bad now?

If you will quit watching a show you like simply because you can't deal with a "sponsored by" plug, you're not the target market for advertising in general. Most people are content to simply ignore the commercials, and roll their eyes at the in-show product placement. Commercials piss everyone off, but there's no reason to get on your soapbox about it.

Re:Quality TV will diminish? Huh? (0)

garcia (6573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311002)

Commercials piss everyone off, but there's no reason to get on your soapbox about it.

50 years ago they weren't showing taped programs and the actors had to really know their stuff to do their parts correctly. 50 years ago they weren't syndicating shows to show re-runs of forever after. 50 years ago was a long time ago and no longer matters.

People need to be on their soapbox and tell how they feel. How dare you infringe on another's rights because you are an anonymous troll?

Re:Quality TV will diminish? Huh? (5, Insightful)

no_opinion (148098) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310994)

Sadly the networks cannot condone properly taking care of the needs of the end users. That wouldn't be fiscally responsible to their pockets.

So you are actually trying to argue that users "need" to download a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder? That is a "want" of end users, not a need, just like I want $1 million. There is no rational justification other than self interest.

Re:Quality TV will diminish? Huh? (3, Insightful)

evil_tandem (767932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311092)

I want to download the content. That I am given no legal way to do that means now i need to steel it to get it in my preferred medium. :)

that was meant as a joke, but seriously, is offering me a free download with commercials and a non-free commercial free version really that much to ask? There are people out there than can do this without too much hassle for FREE. Try giving me nice, easy-to-find, legal links. As long as you don't try to take advantage of customers (hint: pricing) there is plenty of money to be made.

Re:Quality TV will diminish? Huh? (4, Insightful)

mumblestheclown (569987) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311044)

Sadly the networks cannot condone properl taking care of the needs of the end users. That wouldn't be fiscally responsible to their pockets.

Your version of the "needs of the end users" is an endless black hole. The end user always wants faster, better, cheaper.. hell free and lots of it! Yes, sadly the networks can not afford to produce quality programming and give it away for free, without advertising or some other revenue source.

Your cynicism is misplaced - it should not be directed at the pockets of the networks, but rather at your own inability to recognize that the problem is that the end-users who choose to pirate are an unbalancing force in the ecosystem, and if and when that ecosystem comes crashing down (as many here so often claim they wish it will, at least as music is concerned), then they better be the last in line bitching about how suddenly there are fewer shows on TV (or music CDs in the stores) or that copyrightholders increasingly resort to stricter and stricted methods to try to bring some balance back.

Re:Quality TV will diminish? Huh? (0)

garcia (6573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311124)

Your cynicism is misplaced - it should not be directed at the pockets of the networks, but rather at your own inability to recognize that the problem is that the end-users who choose to pirate are an unbalancing force in the ecosystem, and if and when that ecosystem comes crashing down (as many here so often claim they wish it will, at least as music is concerned), then they better be the last in line bitching about how suddenly there are fewer shows on TV (or music CDs in the stores) or that copyrightholders increasingly resort to stricter and stricted methods to try to bring some balance back.

If anything it's 100% properly placed. Please don't confuse me with someone that cares if TV forever dropped off the face of the earth. I would be the first to dance in the streets that I would no longer have to pay $55.98 a month for DirecTV. I could care less if 4 hours of my day were taken up by TV. I have better things to waste my time and energy on.

Re:Quality TV will diminish? Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14311150)

I have better things to waste my time and energy on.

Than why are you bitching and moaning about TVs and avertisements? Go do something important, oh great one!

Re:Quality TV will diminish? Huh? (3, Funny)

notsoanonymouscoward (102492) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311229)

so cancel your cable and STFU already. Stop wasting your time watching the damn thing and get a life.

Re:Quality TV will diminish? Huh? (5, Insightful)

corbettw (214229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311045)

So, let me get this straight: you don't want commercials during the show, you don't want one advertiser to sponsor the whole thing and not have any commercials, and you don't want product placements. Do you want all television to be subscription only, then? Cause someone has to pay to make these things, they're not cheap.

Re:Quality TV will diminish? Huh? (2, Insightful)

Councilor Hart (673770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311219)

Either you pay for it by higher product prices (commercials are also not free) or you pay for the TV show yourself.
In the last case at least your money is going to shows you want to watch.
And no matter how much you try to resist commercials, they'll get you in the end. And if you don't buy anything anymore for which you saw an add, then what are you going to do? Live of sunlight?
So yes, bring on paid for shows. It saves me time (not having to watch ads), it saves me annoyance (not having to watch stupid ads or stupid shows while socialising with the family) and only shows I endorse get money. So that would be more sci-fi and no bloody reality.

Re:Quality TV will diminish? Huh? (2, Insightful)

InvalidError (771317) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311071)

I wonder about product placement in Mythbusters... if you have ever watched the show, they use "Mythbusters-branded" (either stick a Mythbuster print over the original labels or paint over them) everything. Cola, bug spray, gasoline, etc.

For many myths, this would work fine as long as they can get sponsorships for all the front-row stuff required by the myth. "Today, we are going to test wether or not fried chicken provided by KFC has more penetration power than thawed and frozen chicken provided by XYZ using a modified 20gal 200psi tank from MNO, 12" dia. 1/4" thick 10' long steel pipe from PQR, glass pannels from..." Sounds pretty burdensome given that they do the show primarily for fun.

Re:Quality TV will diminish? Huh? (1)

davidmcn (606752) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311094)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of watching commercials or product placement in TV shoes, but the shows we watch have to be funded somehow. What's wrong with an entire episode, shown commercial free, that touts a sponsor for the 1/2 hour time slot (or hour depending on the show)? I'd rather have a 2 or 3 minute commercial air before my show telling me about some product and how they are providing me the next 27 minutes of television than deal with commercials in the middle.

The unfortunate situation (depending on your point of view) is that we live in a capitalist society that is run based on profit margins. You've got to pay everyone involved. Would you appreciate it if you worked on a product, but because of circumstances you can't control your company is unable to pay you? In essence that is what we are doing when we are skipping our commercials or downloading the commercial free torrents. I'm not innocent, but commercials, unless we start paying the networks for each episode of a show we watch, are a necessary evil.

Re:Quality TV will diminish? Huh? (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311170)

What's wrong with an entire episode, shown commercial free, that touts a sponsor for the 1/2 hour time slot (or hour depending on the show)? I'd rather have a 2 or 3 minute commercial air before my show telling me about some product and how they are providing me the next 27 minutes of television than deal with commercials in the middle.

Because they don't "tout a sponser" at the beginning of the show for three minutes. In the case of the 24 episode I mentioned, IIRC, the entire episode showcased Ford automobiles going here there and everywhere and included more closeups of the automobiles' Ford emblem than it did on Jack Bauer.

Take CSI: Las Vegas as another example. They talk about a particular product, I believe in the case I'm remembering most recently it was a phone that did music and they mentioned downloading the song and playing it back on that phone. At the commercial break they showed a commercial for the phone and played that particular piece of music again. VERY LAME.

How about Survivor? They have car ads all over that thing (since the beginning of the show) and this time they showed *4* of them on the show and then advertised them not only on the show and in the commercial breaks but *also* at the end of the show at their "final episode" and "reunion show".

Let's do the Apprentice, shall we? Amazing bars? Know of them? They were "created" on the show and then marketed in real life afterwards. That entire show is an extreme example of payoffs to keep it going. Yahoo, Radio Shack, Nextel, etc all paid for spots on that show to come off as "tasks" that the show participants had to complete. All it really was for was to get more name recognition.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Re:Quality TV will diminish? Huh? (2, Insightful)

RexRhino (769423) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311163)

Sadly the networks cannot condone properly taking care of the needs of the end users. That wouldn't be fiscally responsible to their pockets.
Not only wouldn't it be fiscally responsible to their pockets, it wouldn't be possible. It costs money to pay employees, to purchase equipment, to advertise a show. All that takes resources. You either bring in more resources than you pay out, or you do not have the resources to make the show. There is no magical fairy that is going to give us everything we want without cost. There is no way to escape the laws of reality. Even the government is a profit making corporation (the difference between a private corporation and the government is the government is a monopoly and can use violence... but both private corporations and government corporations are for-profit).

Some alternatives to this are:

1) Have shows produced completly by hobbiests. The hobbiests of course still need to make a profit, but they do that with their day job. In which case, expensive shows like Myth Busters will be very few and far between.

2) Have shows produced by some sort of government monopoly. Welcome to the world of Dubya TV! The police handle ensuring the profit model... this works, so long as you are in the same social group as the ruling class. If you want some programing that the government doesn't approve of, you are out of luck.

So far, commercial programing happens to be the best model we have for producing good television.

Re:Quality TV will diminish? Huh? (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311193)

What I was amazed by was this:

Now try to do that in front of a camera with a bunch of people around, having to repeat things so the camera can get it from different angles, and then stop and talk about it, and often have to truncate what you say so that you make a nice concise and clear statement about it..... and remember, I am a guy that does not normally talk much. Very disconcerting!

Holy ****, Jamie used an exclamation point!

Well, that busts a myth that I had running...

Good Responses (4, Insightful)

Nos. (179609) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310890)

It was nice seeing both of them answer most of the questions. I think most of us would agree that its not pure science, but aside from some notable exceptions, they more or less accomplish what they set out to do. Its entertainment and it obviously makes people think critically about what they are seeing on TV... all in all a good thing. Keep up the good work guys.

Moon Landing Problem... (5, Insightful)

sl3xd (111641) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310897)

Jamie and I have done the research, and figured that the only way to end the debate about the "myth" of the Apollo moon landing is to go there, and bring back something that was left there during one of the Apollo moon landings.

Except that then the conspiracy theorists would then claim that the artifacts left on the moon were placed there by a separate unmanned mission. They could also argue that the artifacts really didn't come from the moon-- the new visit to the moon was also faked, because it's impossible to get past the Van Allen Belts, and the artifacts never left Earth.

The people who are so insistent that the moon landings were a hoax simply re-interpret and filter what facts will fit their cospiracy theory; anything that disagrees with their conclusions are simply ignored or swept under the rug.

Re:Moon Landing Problem... (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310956)

Find one of the skeptics, and strap him/her to the rocket you send up. Make a believer out of 'em!

Re:Moon Landing Problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14310988)

and they'll say you drugged them and made them hallucinate. You can't win vs these types of peoples.

Re:Moon Landing Problem... (1)

taustin (171655) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311062)

You obviously haven't heard about the Space Cadet reality TV series filming right now.

Re:Moon Landing Problem... (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311120)

I say we chose Jonathan Frakes. Not only will he be able to do a special about how we actually *did* land on the moon, but he'll be able to play his pretend Thunderbird and Insurrection games the whole way:

"Flaps to 5" (5 what?)
"Geostationary orbit has been resumed" (from reentry to the atmosphere a few moments ago?)
"Give me manual control!" (A Microsoft Sidewinder to control a STARSHIP?)

I liked Clockstoppers, I really did. It was a cute movie. But he *never* should have been let near Thunderbirds, much less a Star Trek movie. He has something of a screwed up idea about what is "cool", not to mention what is realistic.

Re:Moon Landing Problem... (1)

Southpaw018 (793465) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311042)

There's actually a psychological phenomena describing this - the name of it escapes me at the moment. All of us do it, though...we tend to ignore facts that don't fit preconceived notions and both recognize and remember better ones that do. For example, you're driving on the highway and someone cuts you off. You see their license plate from state X and think "Dang, those drivers sure do suck out there!"

What's different with the conspiracy theorists is that they're taking this to an extreme.

Re:Moon Landing Problem... (1, Troll)

XorNand (517466) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311114)

There's actually a psychological phenomena describing this... ignore facts that don't fit preconceived notions and both recognize and remember better ones that do.
Is 'Republicanism' in the DSM-IV now?

Re:Moon Landing Problem... (1)

EraseEraseMe (167638) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311179)

Cognitive Dissonance I believe

"Schema theory" addresses that some (1)

ianscot (591483) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311220)

...we tend to ignore facts that don't fit preconceived notions and both recognize and remember better ones that do.

Had an undergrad course that dealt with the intersection of political science and psychology. One of the assigned books was about schema theory; I think it was called "Processing the News." It dealt with how people react to news stories.

The human mind is wired to look for patterns. We try to identify them even in random data, meaningless data, and once we've got a working idea about a pattern we'll test new information to see if it can possibly fit in. The "schema" become self-reinforcing to some extent; it's hard to pile up enough contrary evidence, or evidence that just doesn't "fit" well enough, to make people question or revise their dearly held beliefs.

Pretty consistently when I hear a politician speak, or read a newspaper (or God forbid see the TV news), that book comes to mind. People who're trying to win you over know how to toss out the words that will let you fit ideas into the prejudices you carry around with you. A newspaper writer knows, in writing about a robbery, that you can either fit it into the "gang violence" slot or the "kid lost the bike she'd saved her allowance for" slot, and they tailor what they say to help you along.

Conspiracy wonks are pretty good examples of how extreme this tendency can be. It's truly sad how easily they can be manipulated, too, when someone wants to. Pretty clearly Israel was not responsible for 9/11, but the idea that the Mossad was behind it does fit what certain people want to think...

Re:Moon Landing Problem... (4, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311081)

Everything we do today that is outside the reach of common experience is effectively based on belief, just like a philosophy or even a religion is. Science allows us to demonstrate that things are possible, but the fact is that most people, even scientists in other disciplines, frequently have to take certain things on faith, because there is no way that you will ever be able to actually demonstrate the experiments to them.

The moon landings will always be doubted, and doubtable, until we're heading there for vacations and doing real business there which provides materials or situations that move the moon into the common experience. Even then, the human capacity for doubt is large. Today, when we have people from Asia regularly flying halfway around the world to the US and back, there are still flat-earthers. Not many, but some.

This is important to realize, because science is good methodology for getting good theories and proving them, but if you are not able to personally experience the results, you may as well be reading about the painstaking methodology of determining the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin, and it will have as much credence to you as anything else, if you trust the source.

Science is not popular and effective today simply because it produces good theories, it is effective today because a) it produces results we work with and b) we have an educational system that provides non-scientists the ability to replicate some experiments on their own. Without the personal experience, you can say that computers run on electricity all you want, and publish scientific papers up the wazoo about the theories, and people will still be capable of listening to the guy who insists that computers actually run on aether or Brazilian power crystals and that the Moon cannot be landed on because the Radiation belts will kill you instantly (or turn you into the Fantastic Four).

Re:Moon Landing Problem... (1)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311111)

anything that disagrees with their conclusions are simply ignored or swept under the rug

Sounds like some religions. I suppose until a whole group of conspiracy theorists can be given a trip to the moon, the doubt will always remain.

And even then, they might claim that their memories of the trip were false, or that just because they went, doesn't prove that Armstrong, etc. ever went.

Until everybody knows somebody who actually lives on the moon, will the conspiracy theorists be relegated to the status of flat earthers.

Another myth busted? (4, Funny)

no_opinion (148098) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310901)

Somebody has to pay for good programming, and if you cut out all the ads, and cut out the cable revenues, then you will end up with nothing but the kind of programming that is on public access stations, which is fine if that is what you happen to like, but limiting and a bit of a waste for a medium that is as powerful as TV.

Myth: the information wants to be free.
Status: BUSTED (if you want to keep seeing Mythbusters)

I don't mind watching a few ads if that will keep this show on the air.

Re:Another myth busted? (1)

SatanMat (757225) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311015)

Myth: the information wants to be free. Status: BUSTED (if you want to keep seeing Mythbusters)

I'd rather pay directly and hear a "brought to you by ..." than the crap they put in now...

Re:Another myth busted? (1)

slashname3 (739398) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311121)

As DVRs become more common in homes the problem of ad supported shows will become critical. Most DVRs allow users to easily skip past commercials, some even provide automatic skipping of commercials. And being able to watch shows you want to watch when you want to watch them without commercials is fantastic.

It really changes the way you entertain your brain. :)

Re:Another myth busted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14311200)

Yay, now they'll simply stick the ads INTO the show... yeah that's a big step up.

The big question remained unasked, unanswered... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14310915)

Are you two gay?

Re:The big question remained unasked, unanswered.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14310959)

No it's not you uneducated clod. They've answered that question in other interviews. The truth is out there, go find it.

Re:The big question remained unasked, unanswered.. (4, Informative)

xTown (94562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311023)

While I realize that you're just being a jerk, they've actually answered that question in the past.

It's on page 2 of their chat transcript [discovery.com] .

Re:The big question remained unasked, unanswered.. (-1, Offtopic)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311137)

Are you two gay?

If they are they can now get married here in the UK. Well have a "civil partnerhip" anyway: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4530803.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Have you ever been blown away (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310929)

in a word: yes
Video of Cement truck being exploded [nyud.net]

It must be nice to have friends with access to several tons of commercial grade explosives.

Isn't science.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14310939)

..about predictative modeling? Doesn't that make MythBusters just experimentation?

Re:Isn't science.. (1)

nuggz (69912) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311026)

Modelling and prediction is part of science, but experimentation is a big part too.

BTW this question didn't get modded up high enough (I asked it)

Very Cool (1)

TechHSV (864317) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310946)

It was way cool of those guys to answer those questions. Are those guys the biggest stars that have been on Slashdot?

Re:Very Cool (1)

uvsc_wolverine (692513) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310986)

I'd say that's probably based on what criteria you use for determining "bigness." The most famous person I can think of that has answered questions from Slashdot users (aside from some well-known tech industry people) is Wil Wheaton of "Star Trek" fame (who also is a regular poster on /.). I know what his screen name is, but I don't want to post it publicly out of respect for his privacy - although his posts always include the URL to his website http://www.wilwheaton.net/ [wilwheaton.net]

Re:Very Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14311099)

I know what his screen name is, but I don't want to post it publicly out of respect for his privacy - although his posts always include the URL to his website http://www.wilwheaton.net/ [wilwheaton.net]
Wow. You know a secret shared by millions of other geeks.

Sssssshhhh! Don't let the cat out of the bag.

Re:Very Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14311189)

Wil Wheaton is pretty creative. I'm sure he could come up with a clever nick name.

Re:Very Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14311033)

Nah, one of them is just a bear.

Re:Very Cool (4, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311089)

Some of the most famous (note I am judging famous as "likelihood to be known by a non-slashdotter)...

Wil Wheaton [slashdot.org] from Star Trek:TNG and Stand By Me
The Woz [slashdot.org] , creator of the Mac
Peter Jackson [slashdot.org] of LOTR fame
Kevin Mitnick [slashdot.org] , of "Free kevin!" fame
Jeff Bezos [slashdot.org] , CEO of Amazon.com

Slashdot has also interviewed some presidential candidates (from 3rd parties), but I can't find the links.

No favourites? (3, Insightful)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310967)

There are no favorites! The myths are so varied in what they involve that it is comparing apples and oranges.

This sounds like a myth to me, a canned answer if I ever heard. I prefer oranges to apples personally. And I would much rather do an experiment shooting something and seeing the results than finding out whether a broken clock is actually right two times a day.

Contributing new knowledge (4, Interesting)

obli (650741) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310971)

That part about the falling bullet got me thinking: If the myths actually contributed to new knowledge/discoveries, how seriously would they be taken?

Would the scientific community base future research on an entertainment program?

Would Jamie and Adam have to write a scientific publication without their crazy narrator and a really stiff academic style to be taken seriously?

Re:Contributing new knowledge (1)

prichardson (603676) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311079)

I seriously doubt that they would have to do the actual writing (just as I doubt they did all of the research), but that doesn't mean that their show couldn't do the preliminary work to demonstrate that research needed to be done.

Re:Contributing new knowledge (5, Insightful)

ring-eldest (866342) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311166)

A frequent criticism I have of their work in terms of scientific methodology is that they often only have a single (or very few) subjects per condition, even when it would be a simple matter to add more and achieve a greater degree of generalization. One that comes to mind is the testing of motion sickness remedies; the bias present in this bust precludes generalizability mostly because they only used a few subjects, all of them on the research team.

Conducting good research of publishable quality would probably take far too much time to fit into their shooting schedule, but I don't see that as a big loss. If anything I think their show is a perfect example of the division between research and entertainment. I think that if their show encourages a single child to pursue a career in science, it has had more of an impact than a dozen published papers a year, regardless of their quality. Science in America is already far to maligned by politicians and misunderstood by the general public.

Re:Contributing new knowledge (1)

slashname3 (739398) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311180)

The falling bullet myth should be very similar to falling penny myth. The only real difference is the mass of the bullet. If the bullet was fired straight up it would eventually lose all momentum imparted by the weapon and reach crtical velocity in the decent. Airodynamics might play a part in this since the bullet would most likely be tumbling down. Of course if was fired straight up I would expect the bullet to land some where West of the firing point due to rotation of the earth so it would not come straight back down.

End result is that a falling bullet would probably hurt and leave a bruise but most likely would not kill you or seriously injure you.

I like MythBusters (0, Redundant)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310977)

I think they should check back on Slashdot more often for ideas.

Computer Myths (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14310993)

Computer myths? by Short Circuit
Have you ever considered taking on some computer myths? Like whether or not it was ever possible for a virus to destroy old monitors?

ADAM SAVAGE -- ... Set up 2 brand new computers, hook them up to the internet, surf a little, and see what kind of spam they get....
Translation: Why destroy an old monitor when we can destroy brand new computers.

Re:Computer Myths (2)

slashname3 (739398) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311206)

If they do a bit about spam I hope they setup and test an MTA with grey-listing and spamassassin. But most likely they will play with some version of windows spam tool that is not as effective as grey-listing is.

Linus likes surprise sex (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14311041)

How come Lunix has AIDS?

Awesome! (1)

sietekk (525137) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311043)

A great interview. I loves this show. It's very thought provoking while most TV content is lacking. I emailed these guys two years ago about advice for college. I want to get into a career similar to theirs. They took the time to email me back and gave their honest advice. I'm very impressed!

Re:Awesome! (2, Funny)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311152)

I emailed these guys two years ago about advice for college. I want to get into a career similar to theirs. They took the time to email me back and gave their honest advice. I'm very impressed!

Did they tell you that it was a myth that a college degree will get you a good career?

Shark myth? (1)

dmf415 (218827) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311048)

By the way, will hitting a Shark in the nose cause it so much pain that the shark will swim away?

I missed Shark week...

Re:Shark myth? (4, Funny)

Pope (17780) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311232)

You could always just download a torrent of the episode.

Oh wait...

Re:Shark myth? (1)

Morpeth (577066) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311237)

The short answer is yes; though it wasn't so much pain as it seemed to annoy them.

They tried to do it with some animatronics at first (kind of a rockem sockem robot), but it was a bit bulky, slow and awkward.

Ultimately (Jamie?) went down in a chainmail suit with another guy experienced diving with sharks. They had bait with them, and when the sharks got close enough he'd bop it in the head/nose. The response wasn't dramatic, but it did seem to discourage them at least somewhat.

So I think their conclusion was that it's "plausible", and if a shark were to bite you, it's certainly not a bad idea to hit it hard in the nose if you're able.

To the moon with you! (1)

EBFoxbat (897297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311080)

Go to the moon. Just do it. It would make for 5-10 days of the best reality TV ever. 1/2 the people wuold be hopinh you die, 1/2 the people would be hoping you make it. Partner with Virgin Mobile (or whatever their rocket company is) get some big time sponsors. I'm pretty sure they could make something in their shop that would launch Buster into sub-orbital space or beyond. In fact, given funding, I know they could.

poppy seed bagel episode (1)

austinpoet (789122) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311103)

I'm surprised to see that episode mentioned in the interview. I don't claim to know all that goes on behind the scenes at Discovery channel, but in all the reruns of episodes (is anyone tired of the Son of a Gun myth yet?) I almost never see the poppyseed bagel episode. I'd bet that showing potential drug-abusers a valid method of obfuscating the results of a drug screening got some uppity types angry, and we'll likely (almost) never see that episode again. The "you can't beat the breathalizer" episode gets shown alot too, but the poppy seed bagel one is never re-aired. also F Kari, and give me more Scottie!

You are my idols! (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311117)

I am an "over-enthusiastic" 17-year-old chemistry student from Grane Street, Haslingden, Lancashire, UK and I must say that I think you're the best. I have followed your work throughout my A-Level chemistry course and you've been a great inspiration to me.

Thanks!

p.s. I was very disappointed with the police explosions. They could learn a thing or two from you both!

Terminal Velocity of a .38 Super (3, Interesting)

Deltaspectre (796409) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311127)

So I was looking at the questions and I wondered what the terminal velocity of a bullet was... :P

I'm sure I got some figures wrong somewhere but is 260,000 m/h a reasonable figure for terminal velocity for a bullet?

My calculations (based on Wikipedia mostly)

sqrt((2*7.5g*9.8 m/s^2)/(.295*1.2kg/m^3*74.661912907937mm^2))

In the format of sqrt((2*mass*acceleration due to gravity)/(drag coeffecient*density of fluid it's traveling through*cross sectional area)

Is this within reason? 74.5 m/s or 268,478 m/h
P.S. Sig figs be damned :D

Re:Terminal Velocity of a .38 Super (1)

Deltaspectre (796409) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311242)

Hrm, it seems thats meters per hour....

166 MILES per hour it is =D

(I better not let my physics teacher see this....)

rats... (1)

TheCreeep (794716) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311133)

I was really hoping that they'll try to bust the myth that Windows' TCO si less than Linux's.

Re:rats... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14311169)

First they would have to prove that time != money.

That'd be pretty tough to do...

Repeatable Experiments? by Aggrazel (5, Interesting)

Evil Closet Monkey (761299) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311157)

Have you ever considered having a show where you say, "DO Try this at home?" Its fun to see my child get such a love of science in such a fun way.

BEST question and answers here! Sit down with your kids, engage them, challange them, let them have fun, and have fun yourself doing it! Who'd a thunk it!?

Thumbs up Aggrazel!

A visual computer myth (4, Interesting)

E-Sabbath (42104) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311159)

Long ago, there was a program named Shiva written, that caused the floppy drive to swing back and forth, creating a harmonic resonance with a IBM PC 5150, which broke it apart.
Source: The Devouring Fungus, IIRC.

Adam Savage Interview on my Podcast (2, Informative)

caldroun (52920) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311167)

Disclaimer: I am talking about my own podcast here...

I have a podcast called Technorama over at http://www.chuckchat.com/ [chuckchat.com] [chuckchat.com]

My co-host and I interviewed Adam Savage about a couple of months ago. It was a really good interview.

If you care to listen..here is the whole thing.
http://www.chuckchat.com/technorama/?page_id=129 [chuckchat.com]

Whose robot was it? (3, Interesting)

reset_button (903303) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311203)

ADAM SAVAGE -- ... interviewed Jamie and I about a robot we had in the original "Robot Wars"...

JAMIE HYNEMAN -- ... interviewed me some years ago during "Robot Wars" when I had a notorious robot ...

... we, or I?

Another Queston (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14311210)

In one of the replies, this was stated.
Jamie and I have done the research, and figured that the only way to end the debate about the "myth" of the Apollo moon landing is to go there, and bring back something that was left there during one of the Apollo moon landings.
The question now is, do they always tackle a new project with preconceived ideas about whether it's a myth or not?

Darn (0, Redundant)

Starbreeze (209787) | more than 8 years ago | (#14311213)

Damn, I missed the original post. I wanted to ask Adam if he'd go on a date with me ;)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>