President Obama On Mythbusters Tonight 416
elrous0 writes "As was previously reported, President Obama mentioned back in October that he would be appearing on an upcoming episode of the popular Discovery Channel series Mythbusters. Well, the episode is finally airing tonight. In the episode, the President helps Jamie and Adam test the 'Archimedes Death Ray' myth for a 3rd time (the myth having been 'busted' the first time, and that bust surviving a challenge from MIT students the second time out). Though the President only appears in a couple of brief scripted segments, the actual test (using 500 schoolkids doubling as mirror-bearing soldiers) is purportedly pretty interesting."
First Post? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be McCain.
The Tea Potty has its hand so far up McCain's (and other Republicans') backside you can see the fingertips in his mouth as he speaks.
--
BMO
Meh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Burn, maybe not... (Score:2)
Re:Burn, maybe not... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're gonna rag on them, rag on the fact that the fucking narrator spends a minute explaining what happen, another minute on what they're going to do, another on what could go wrong, replete with puns, three minutes of actually showing Adam and Jamie or Kari, Grant, and Tori doing stuff, then, just as things are progressing, they switch to the other team and their myth and start all over, and THEN follows it up with two minutes of what's going to happen after the commercial break.
Drives me nuts (and away from the TV).
Re:Burn, maybe not... (Score:4, Informative)
That used to annoy the hell out of me too, until I realized my remote had a fast forward button. Now, it's actually a feature. I can watch a whole show in 20 minutes. Great while having breakfast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Was your mirror made of crude polished copper, a couple of hundred feet away, aimed at a moving ship on the water?
Re: (Score:2)
The distance doesn't matter: make it a segment of a larger sphere (i.e. a smaller arc angle) and the focal point moves further away.
Have you ever shined a light on a block of polished copper? Lap that stuff well enough ....
Moving targets are hard, but with enough energy this isn't an issue. Sails ignite quite quick.
Re: (Score:2)
"The distance doesn't matter: make it a segment of a larger sphere (i.e. a smaller arc angle) and the focal point moves further away."
"Moving targets are hard, but with enough energy this isn't an issue. Sails ignite quite quick."
You do know that they are testing a MYTH? One that has certain parameters? This is not about whether is is possible to set something on fire with a fucking mirror. Add that to the fact that you believe that distance doesn't matter and sails ignite quickly, means that you are wil
Re: (Score:2)
I've ignited shirts in 4 seconds with an 18 inch mirror. Sails are large canvas things and will ignite quite quick if you can deliver the needed energy. It's only a few hundred degrees; realize that the 90 degree weather outside comes entirely from the sun, not from the Goddess of Summer. What are you, Wiccan? Is our winter so cold because of the Calliach Bleuhr or however it's spelled?
Also: here is a copper mirror. http://www.overclockers.com/wp-content/uploads/images/stories/articles/Tales_of_a_S [overclockers.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But the fact that the story only appeared over a thousand years after the lifetime of Archimedes or any possible eyewitness pretty much tells us everything we need to know.
Try barely 700 (Archimedes died 212 BC, first writer to attribute the mirror-based death-ray to him lived 474-558 AD). Your point is sound, though. That's still an awful long time for a literate people to remember something without writing it down.
That sounds terrible... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really sure you want to see Obama in a Hoplite getup?
Re: (Score:3)
Is the Myth busted? Yes. Flat mirrors, hand aiming, going to be a very large focus area.
But if you took something like this [youtube.com] ...
That video makes me wonder just how far away you can set the focal point and still have it be effective. Because that thing is fucking awesome.
Re:That sounds terrible... (Score:5, Funny)
What better way to get people excited about science by showing a man a lot of people respect excited about it?
OK, that's a good argument. So, why is Obama on the show?
Re:That sounds terrible... (Score:5, Funny)
What a lame duck of a Myth. That Myth wasn't even very exciting the first time they did it...
Yeah, if they wanted to do Archimedes, it would have been way more exciting to test whether discovering fluid displacement is exciting enough to make someone run around town naked.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it'd be interesting if they thought creatively.
Legend has it that the Archimedes myth happened. It was written, so it (or something like it) happened. So why not try to replicate it using the least-possible technology they can conceive (and modern engineering), arranged in as creative fashions as they can? It's been shown repeatedly that Greek engineering was not exactly limited in terms of creativity: we've found a number of very interesting, complex examples (some of which have not been fully determ
Hope and Change? (Score:5, Funny)
Busted!
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, did he promise more hope? Or was it more like "hope the change is good".
He certainly delivered on change, and you could say he delivered on hope too, since it now takes a hell of a lot more hope than it used to to believe we'll ever get out of this mess.
It all depends on how you look at it.
Mythical (Score:2)
Do they bust the myth Obama is the Messiah?
Hey! I'm kidding! Calm down. Put down those DDoS scripts!
Seriously, though, do they bust or confirm he's Kenyan? :-D
Hey! Still kidding!
Wheres Kari? (Score:5, Funny)
Who cares, wheres Kari?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lose your eyes in a freak combine accident? She's actually bounced back quite nicely. I wonder how much diet/exercise is expressly worded in her contract. Very nice MILF, though I find her canned line regurgitation to be a tad flat. I miss the days when they spent more time on the actual construction/theory than the banter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She provided the infantile fecal matter for the episode where they were trying to fool the contraband sniffing dogs.
Re: (Score:2)
Given production to air delay, she could already be home nursing.
Anyone heard of any nursing myths? Maybe we can make some up? No idea how we'll work the mandatory Mythbusters "and now, we blow stuff up" into that episode.
Re: (Score:2)
I can, but it's more like a Japanese cartoon than a Mythbusters episode.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bzzzzzzzzt, nice try, its well known Kari prefers low slashdot user IDs, mister seven digits.
Hmm... that would be a great mythbusters episode.
Transportation Security (Score:4, Insightful)
Test if a wooden gun can get past like in the line (Score:2)
Test if a wooden gun can get past like in the line and if one can work like in the line of fire.
Here's a myth he can bust.. (Score:2)
"Mr. President... (Score:2)
How does an airplane see a signal mirror? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of all the myths they've 'busted', this is the one I most wanted to see revisited.
Survival kits have signal mirrors with a sighting mechanism and no moving parts that allows the user to shine the sun's reflection directly onto the target (even a distant moving airplane). A mechanism Archimedes could have fashioned onto a shield for instance.
The Mythbusters claim the myth was 'busted' not because enough heat couldn't be generated, but because an individual soldier would be unable to distinguish his particular 'reflected spot', and therefore be unable to focus it onto the target. A simple sighting mechanism like those found on signal mirrors solves this problem, allowing an entire group to focus on one point simultaneously.
"Sight" is a bit of a misnomer on signal mirrors (Score:3)
Survival kits have signal mirrors with a sighting mechanism and no moving parts that allows the user to shine the sun's reflection directly onto the target (even a distant moving airplane)
Not really. The sighting mechanism is not a "sight" in the sense of one found on rifles, etc. Its not accurate enough to hold on a target, at best it can help you get into the general area so you can sweep around this area and accidentally hit the aircraft from time to time. You may look through the sight but you still often need to hold out your free hand and form a V with your fingers. You put the target inside this V and sweep the mirror back and forth. You look for the reflections on your two fingers to
Re:How does an airplane see a signal mirror? (Score:4, Informative)
The Mythbusters claim the myth was 'busted' not because enough heat couldn't be generated, but because an individual soldier would be unable to distinguish his particular 'reflected spot', and therefore be unable to focus it onto the target.
You obviously missed the second busting of this myth, where MIT built the rig. They had a mechanism for sighting the mirrors, and were able to get a very tight spot on the boat.
They were able ignite the boat with the modern mirrors, but could not do it with polished copper.
You want to know the most effective way of lighting a boat on fire? Shooting an arrow of flaming pitch at it. That one worked the best, and had the advantage of being much simpler and faster than the deathray with modern mirrors. The deathray with copper mirrors simply didn't work.
One episode I won't be watching (Score:3)
1) I don't care for career politicians, regardless of the label they wear. Having any political idiot come out and do a talking-head segment adds absolutely nothing to the program.
2) Testing this myth yet again is just f'ing stupid.
I wonder how many people will avoid watching it just because of obama's appearance, and how many will skip this one because of the repeated subject.
Argh! Give up this stupid myth! (Score:5, Insightful)
One day, some old-timey soldier noticed that he could reflect the sun off his shield if he polished it real good and it made it hard for the enemy to see if he reflected the sun into the eyes of enemy soldiers. Same way we used to reflect the sun off our watches and shine it in people's faces when we were kids. So a few soldiers started doing this when the sun happened to be at the proper angle and, presto, we've got a death ray. 'cause the enemy has to come up with some reason to explain why they got their asses kicked so easily. "It was a death ray, majesty! It burned the eyes of our soldiers and set ships on fire!"
Make me think of Nancy Reagan (Score:2)
appearing on Different Strokes. Painfully lame. Politicians can't make science cool because kids don't think much of politicians. If they do, then I'm afraid you are likely preaching to the choir.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of humanity appears to thoroughly enjoy the pastime of hero worship. This seems to be widespread enough that we might want to investigate whether there is some evolutionary advantage to it. Maybe kissing ass provides some sort of inoculation against disease.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The president will tend to be loved or hated by most, without much middle room, in our culture. It's party of the ability to have a say in the choice - you become "attached". Imagine how much more people would support for their favorite football team (or condemn the opponents) if they could affect the outcome of the game?
There aren't just people who *love* Obama, there are plenty who despise him. Likewise there are many who loved, and many who despised Bush, Clinton, Elder Bush, Reagan, etc.
Also, as far as
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine how much more people would support for their favorite football team (or condemn the opponents) if they could affect the outcome of the game?
Many already think they do. Aside from the delusional, on a very small scale, via purchases of tickets and tee shirts, they do influence the winners, since the wealthiest team usually wins.
Re: (Score:2)
Seahawks 12th man effect.
"But the lasting memory of that November afternoon was the Giants' 11 false start penalties, when New York's offensive line was unable to decipher Eli Manning's hand gestures and silent count." (due to fan noise.)
http://www.komonews.com/sports/106809068.html [komonews.com]
From Wikipedia:
"Qwest Field in Seattle has been architecturally designed to be the loudest stadium in the NFL. This has caused 2.83 false starts per game, which is the highest in the NFL since 2005. The Decibel level at Qwest Fie
Re: (Score:2)
Obama wants the power to turn off the internet. He will probably get it eventually but doesn't have it yet.
Neil Smit's company (Comcast) however routinely disconnects or restricts bandwidth to/from various parts of the internet.
Now with the changeover Obama will probably have a hard time getting Congress to do his bidding. Disney, Comcast and even foreign companies like Sony get that all the time!
Re: (Score:2)
The same could be said of RIAA-funded talentless "musicians".
Re: (Score:2)
Obama has already proven his true convictions to anyone paying attention.
Re:Real myth busted (Score:5, Funny)
Q: How can you tell someone's a libertarian without asking?
A: They'll tell you.
Re:Real myth busted (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Way to again mis-state the liberal position. They really need to create an emoticon for you people to save time.
Then fix the statement, instead of resorting to a "you people" insult with no added content.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So when a libertarian's house is on fire and the firefighters show up, do they say "No, that's ok, I'm a libertarian."?
Why should they? Where I live the firefighters are all volunteers working with equipment that was purchased with donations. What does that have to do with not wanting the government to do more than the basics (maintaining basic law and order, enforcing contract law, etc)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Including the real estate on which the fire department facilities are located and the infrastructure they use to transport the equipment from their to your home?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not quite sure where libertarians have objected to being expected to behave like a responsible human being. I think you may be mistaking libertarians for anarchists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am a libertarian and I can't stand any other approach... definitely not free market oriented at all
Well, you're a Libertarian. No one is free-market-oriented enough for you.
Obama is actually not very socially liberal
"We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."
In what way is that not socially liberal? I guess the conservatives haven't set the bar very high, but he has explicitly acknowledged atheists repeatedly, while everyone else, even democrats, do everything they can to distance themselves from even the rumor that they might maybe have met with some of them once to see
Re: (Score:2)
The location of birth matters because it's tied to the requirements for the office of President. Interestingly, doesn't McCain fail that one as well by being born in Panama? Note: Specifically not in military base i Panama, because a US military base is considered US soil.
The real question is what defines "natural born"? Is it born on US soil? Born to a US citizen? Born to two US citizens? Both Obama and McCain fail at least one of those. Obama being born to one US citizen and a foreigner in Hawaii a
Re: (Score:2)
Not that it matters. What, exactly, does that change? Is there some mystical essence of American-ism that children are endowed with in their first ten seconds of life outside of mommy? The fact that this was an issue at all is beyond absurd.
As you might not know, It matters because you have to be born in the united states to be eligible to be president. Its not "important" in any practical sense, but its in the "rules".
Perhaps ironically, John McCain actually wasn't born in the United States either, althoug
Re:Well, I *was* looking forward to watching this. (Score:5, Funny)
I find it odd that The Discovery Channel would get access to the President and use their huge publicity opportunity to... rehash a myth they've already debunked twice. What?
The only possible reason to use this particular myth is so you can get 500 kids involved, each holding a mirror, and maybe involving the kids directly in the science, plus a little time with a few celebrities, will help associate science with coolness. I mean, it's an easy and pretty safe myth from the kids' perspectives. Hold a mirror, aim reflection at ship a safe distance away, hope for it to start smoking and burst into flames.
I dunno, though, it just seems like they could have done something new (at least new to the show) that would be just as engaging. Like debunking the professor's use of coconuts to power a radio on Gilligan's Island or something.
Adam: "So, as you can see, stirring the solution in 5 coconuts didn't work. Busted."
Jamie: "Agreed. Busted. So what are we testing next?"
Barak: [walks on stage]"Wait a minute. We can't stop here, can we? Don't we need to scale it up?"
Jamie: "Sure, normally, but how do we scale this one up?"
Adam: "It'll take the output of 500 coconuts! Where are we going to find enough people to build and operate hundreds of coconut batteries? It's impossible!"
Barak: "Fortunately, I brought a few friends along to help out. C'mon out, kids!"
[cue 500 schoolkids]
Barak, Jamie, and Adam: "SCIENCE!"
Re:Well, I *was* looking forward to watching this. (Score:5, Insightful)
So that's what kids' science education is boiling down to? Standing still and holding a mirror?
Would have been much more awesome, and effective in encouraging science interest, in my opinion, if the kids had a hand in making something go boom.
Unless they have a major reversal of the busting of the myth, a kid would interpret this as "This is stupid. Science doesn't work. Let's go play Xbox."
Re:Well, I *was* looking forward to watching this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the "science" that is being taught is that, despite the fact that your research has reached the same conclusion on 2 separate occasions, you need to keep yourself open to the possibility that you might just have been wrong twice. When other people provide evidence you are wrong (I don't recall where it was, but I saw a tv show or webpage in the last few months that demonstrated the death ray does work), you need to examine that evidence, revisit your study, and see if you reach a new conclusion. That's a quality that a lot of people lack these days (they will insist they are correct even when showing them clear and concise evidence they are wrong).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, I *was* looking forward to watching this. (Score:5, Funny)
Once.
What I learned was that there is a good reason for flashback preventers. A splendid time was had by all.
Re: (Score:2)
So that's what kids' science education is boiling down to? Standing still and holding a mirror?
I suppose if they turned it into an analysis of ADHD medication tested by trying to hold a mirror still...
Re: (Score:2)
What I don't get is why people expect to raise the temperature all the way up to 300C so the ship will burst into flames, when 50C is enough to scald human skin and would likely get an invading army yelling and jumping into the water. Not to mention the brightness of the light would be enough to temporarily blind and disorient them.
The first person to write about this alleged incident was Lucian who merely mentioned *fire* (and since he wrote about it 3-4 hundred years after the fact, it's already not a cre
Re: (Score:2)
The Professor was a genius in the coconut-engineering arts, and I will not stand idly by while his good name is besmirched.
I challenge the Mythbusters to debunk that myth without resorting to pedantry.* Coconut milk is mildly acidic electrolytic solution. If you can power electroni
Re:Well, I *was* looking forward to watching this. (Score:5, Funny)
We already know the President likes a human backdrop: soldiers, doctors, union members... you get the idea.
Wouldn't a backdrop of 500 kids be great? 500 kids holding mirrors, cackling gleefully as they accidentally ignite the President and his teleprompter.
Re:Well, I *was* looking forward to watching this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, it's so annoying to hear Obama-teleprompter jokes. Especially since they're from formerly disinterested morons who never realized that all politicians use them for speeches anyway. "But-but-he stutters and sounds like an idiot without one!" Remember the Presidential debates where he kicked the crap out of McCain 3-0 without one, or the open questions session with the House Republicans [washingtonpost.com] where he made the whole caucus look like buffoons (enough so that they publicly wished they hadn't done it)? After listening to polished PR-approved answers that provide no insight, I at least appreciate a President who tries to answer questions however much I might disagree with him.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We already know the President likes a human backdrop: soldiers, doctors, union members... you get the idea.
Is there a politician alive who doesn't prefer a backdrop of "supporters" whenever they can arrange one?
Re: (Score:3)
Why not frikkin' lasers?
Teleprompter? (Score:2)
Will He? (Score:3)
Will he bring his Birth Suffaticket? :-)
get off my iLawn! (Score:2)
goldurn'd boob-tube never gets it right when dealing with the inter-tubes.
It's Archimedes Plutonium , you dolts!
Re: (Score:2)
Now you've fucking done it. Don't you know that he's got a cluster of Crays grepping every newsgroup for mention of his name?
Now he's going to troll this froup from here to next week.
--
BMO
Re:get off my iLawn! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never gotten why we call it ObamaCare. It was basically written by conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans (how long was it Max Baucus held up the bill in his committee until Republicans in the committee agreed to it?) But the CBO analysis was that it would help save money. And the only way to bring down the debt in the long term is to bring in more health care funding and reduce spending as much as possible. So we can at least say it was a decent attempt. Hopefully we can improve on it in the coming years.
Is the Obama administration more transparent than previous ones? Yes. Is it ultra-see-through transparent? No.
Most legislation is online before they vote on it. And has been for a while. Not that Presidents have any power over that.
Have you ever thought about falling tax receipts because of the recession? Spending could remain constant while receipts fall, sending deficits skyrocketing. This is partly the case - tax receipts have fallen, the government had to pay out more unemployment benefits (never mind the extensions), etc. But yeah. The Bush tax cuts are still in effect. The giant, gaping unfunded hole Bush left in Medicare is still intact. The wars Bush started are still going on. So yes, much of the deficit is still directly attributable to Bush and the Republicans. Now with Obama, we have the stimulus package, which consisted almost entirely of tax cuts and aid to the states, which were spending less money. So really, it was an increase in unfunded government expenditures while total state+federal spending remained flat. And then there's ObamaCare, which is funded. So, yeah, sounds like most of the deficit/debt problems are not Obama's fault.
Anyone who thought Obama was going to pull out all troops on day one was a tool ignorant of international politics.
Corporations have undue influence on government, but they're hardly the masters of poor government puppets. I know it's a popular canard, but it's just not true.
Is Obama different? Nope, he's a thorough moderate. 30 years ago he would have been called a conservative.
Re:get off my iLawn! (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe challenging the claim that the current administration is going to help save money with Obamacare? (Busted?)
It's already busted: look at the latest health stats out in Massachusetts. Our health care costs are through the roof, fewer people are able to see doctors than before, and more people than ever before are getting health care through the emergency room.
On the other hand, adult obesity rates are apparently down, so that's something, although I suppose if you can't afford to eat due to insane health care costs... (Childhood obesity, on the other hand, is up.)
Re: (Score:3)
My God! The first modded up comment is about politics and not about the show at all, even though the show and Obama's appearance are completely apolitical! I am shocked! SHOCKED!
Re: (Score:2)
Because the ancient Greeks didn't have lasers, but they did have mirrors and sunlight.
Besides, where's the fun in lasers without sharks?
Re: (Score:2)
They ran out of sharks again.
Re:Flamethrowers (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like we're getting screwed on this Archimedes thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The kids at MIT proved you and Jamie wrong. [mit.edu]
Re:Flamethrowers (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that they're down to bitching about the moisture content of the test boat only shows how impractical this would be in real-world conditions. Complaining that their test conditions were less than ideal is part of the problem with the myth. No military leader in his right mind is going to work with a "weapon" that only works at a certain time of day, on a boat with a certain moisture content, moving slower than X speed, etc.--especially when there are far-superior alternatives available (like flaming arrows, etc.).
Those MIT students sound like sore losers. And like all sore losers, they're full of plenty of excuses. They had their chance and they couldn't deliver.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Silly - they don't watch science shows.
they can do that or go for the big boom or firebal (Score:2)
they can do that or go for the big boom or fireball and any ways this is mythbusters and not E-com 101
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They were specifically testing the MOVIE myth version of that one (from Lethal Weapon 2) and were attempting only to recreate it exactly as it was shown in that specific movie.
Re: (Score:2)
That was one of the problems the MIT students had. When they tried it with actual polished copper, in real world conditions, their "proof" of this myth feel apart.
Re: (Score:2)
What's so funny about the whole controversy is that it doesn't matter where he was born. His mother was a citizen, he's a citizen, end of story.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
The implication in the Constitution is that you must be physically born in the U.S. The irony of that, however, is that this is a problem for John McCain *WAY* more than for Obama. McCain was born in Panama (no controversy about it). It's only by the somewhat dubious argument that "Well, *technically* a military base is considered U.S. soil" that he got around that issue to argue he was born in the U.S. I'm not so sure Panama (or any other country where we have bases) would be so quick to agree.
Re: (Score:3)
if you DQ'd Obama you'd logically have to DQ McCain.
No, that would be illogical.
English common law (on which the US laws were loosely based) specifically ruled that children of diplomats, foreign agents, and invading military forces were not natural born citizens of the physical country of their birth.
OTOH, it makes complete logical sense to say that the children of diplomats and our troops born while abroad are natural born citizens of the United States. It’d be a flat-out insult to them any other way. “Sorry, but since you’re serving your