Favourite Mythbuster Moments [modified]
-
From my high school typing class: 'a lot' is two separate words, not one. Where is the spell checker when it’s really needed? Tim
-
From my high school typing class: 'a lot' is two separate words, not one. Where is the spell checker when it’s really needed? Tim
-
Tim Carmichael wrote:
Where is the spell checker when it’s really needed?
Eye halve a spelling chequer It came with my pea sea, It plainly marques four my revue Miss steaks eye kin knot sea... ;)
goad won!
It is a crappy thing, but it's life -^ Carlo Pallini
-
goad won!
It is a crappy thing, but it's life -^ Carlo Pallini
Gotta love that Google... :-O
-
Yes, that is definitely one of the greatest moments of television :cool:
-
I don't think pseudo-science entertainment shows belong on the discovery channel.
Need custom software developed? I do C# development and consulting all over the United States. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane
Well at least they have not gone off topic as much as VH1, MTV, TLC... Is there any educational programming / learning (at all) left on TLC? Do I have to be awake at 3:00 AM to see a music video?
John
modified on Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:57 PM
-
As, being a student, I have nothing else better to do all day than to watch a lot of Mythbusters. My favourite moment, so far, is the Exploding Cement Truck[^]. What is the all time greatest Mythbuster moment?
My failometer has shot off the end of the scale! I seem to have misplaced my ban button.. no wait... found it!
modified on Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:09 PM
-
I don't think pseudo-science entertainment shows belong on the discovery channel.
Need custom software developed? I do C# development and consulting all over the United States. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane
My only problem with them is the "binaryness" of their show - Busted / Plausible / Confirmed. I like that they test things, but to say something is Busted without really knowing the subject matter is a mistake. Then again, you get weird "Plausible" results as well... So, in particular, I have an issue with this concrete truck: If you want to split stone, you have to bore a hole in it and put the charge in the hole. You should know this from How It's Made or even Deep Impact. Putting a stick of dynamite on top of a concrete pad won't do anything except make noise. :doh: OTOH, I taugh my son the difference between a high explosive and a low-speed explosive from this episode, so it wasn't a total loss. Having to explain that to his 3rd grade teacher was awkward. :) But, there's a lot to be learned about test design, construction, and properties you wouldn't normally think about on the show. Where else would you try to walk on oobleck?
-
I hope you don’t think that the pseudo-historical “documentaries” are better.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
I haven't like those since Connections. At least with Connections, the story was a insight to the mind of those at the time. Some of the new "historical documentary" stuff is really bogus.
-
I don't think pseudo-science entertainment shows belong on the discovery channel.
Need custom software developed? I do C# development and consulting all over the United States. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
I don't think pseudo-science entertainment shows belong on the discovery channel.
Being an entertainment show, they obviously don't go through the whole double-blind control group experiment with results verified by independent researchers, etc. thing that is the hallmark of "real" science, but I don't recall them ever pretending to be anything other than an entertainment show. So it's hardly fair to expect them to conduct their experiments in such a way as to pass peer review. Or should we also go around to elementary school science fairs and find a student to verbally eviscerate because his experiment on growing bean sprouts at various light levels has an insufficient p-value? The label of "pseudo-science" belongs to dishonest scams like Ghost Hunters and John Edward, not those shows legitimately try to popularize simplified, but still quite real, science.
