RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,048
Posts: 5,430,943
Members: 24,926
Currently online: 530
Newest member: In_Correct

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Cracked’s New Sci-Fi Satire
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Beltran Introduces Shakespeare To Theater Group
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Burton To Be Honored at Facets Boo! Bash
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

New Trek Puzzles
By: T'Bonz on Oct 15

Star Trek Online: Delta Rising
By: T'Bonz on Oct 15


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > TV & Media

TV & Media Non-Trek television, movies, books, music, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 8 2013, 03:00 PM   #61
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: MYTHBUSTERS 10th Anniversary Season

Tori died?!!?










Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 8 2013, 03:01 PM   #62
Mister Fandango
Fleet Captain
 
Mister Fandango's Avatar
 
Re: MYTHBUSTERS 10th Anniversary Season

Christopher wrote: View Post
^Well, yes, but Mythbusters standard practice is that once they debunk that a myth could work given the described parameters, they then try to find out what would be required to replicate the results. Which often requires going to such obviously impractical lengths that it just reinforces the absurdity of the myth.
But they weren't trying to replicate the results of the myth. The results of the myth was the guy getting busted before he could even finish the parachute, which means even if they were ignoring the actual myth and instead just trying to see if building a parachute would work, the 3-hour limit was irrelevant.
Mister Fandango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 8 2013, 06:48 PM   #63
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: MYTHBUSTERS 10th Anniversary Season

Mister Fandango wrote: View Post
But they weren't trying to replicate the results of the myth. The results of the myth was the guy getting busted before he could even finish the parachute, which means even if they were ignoring the actual myth and instead just trying to see if building a parachute would work, the 3-hour limit was irrelevant.
No, that's the result of the real event. "Replicating the result" means replicating what the myth claimed would happen, and figuring out what it would really take to achieve that outcome. Here, the myth was not that the guy tried to make a parachute; that's simply a fact. The myth was what the guy believed: that by making a parachute and jumping out the 20th-story window, he could escape the police. That's the "result" in Mythbusters terms: the outcome he believed would result if he did a certain thing.

The question the team was examining was, if he'd actually made the jump rather than being arrested -- if he'd jumped just before the police stormed the room at the 3-hour mark -- would it have worked as he believed/hoped it would? (Sure, they could've tested the scenario that the police would've waited longer than 3 hours, but maybe that was standard procedure or something, so they decided to go with the alternative that only the criminal's actions were different.) And once they found that it wouldn't have worked, the next question was, what would that criminal have needed to do to escape a hotel room via makeshift parachute? What would he have had to do in order to achieve the desired result?

Really, there's a whole subgenre of Mythbusters segments where they test escape schemes, starting with the first-season Alcatraz myth and including others like the salsa escape, the horse pulling out prison bars, the makeshift ropes made from various materials, the paper crossbow, the techniques for eluding bloodhounds, etc. Here, too, they were testing the feasibility of the criminal's escape plan -- not what actually happened, but what he wanted to do. It's just that, unlike many of the other plans they've tested, this is a plan that never actually got put into practice.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 8 2013, 11:20 PM   #64
Mister Fandango
Fleet Captain
 
Mister Fandango's Avatar
 
Re: MYTHBUSTERS 10th Anniversary Season

Christopher wrote: View Post
No, that's the result of the real event. "Replicating the result" means replicating what the myth claimed would happen, and figuring out what it would really take to achieve that outcome. Here, the myth was not that the guy tried to make a parachute; that's simply a fact. The myth was what the guy believed: that by making a parachute and jumping out the 20th-story window, he could escape the police. That's the "result" in Mythbusters terms: the outcome he believed would result if he did a certain thing.
Again, the 3-hour limit has nothing to do with the myth. The myth was based on a real, verifiable event and in that real, verifiable event, no parachute was made and used in three hours. It was not a part of the myth, unless "Mythbusters themselves making shit up randomly and then trying to pass it off as an accurate part of the myth" counts as a myth.

And no, it wasn't even a part of the myth they presented. The myth (actually, it's not even a myth, but whatever) they presented included the fact that he was interrupted in creating the parachute after only three hours. Which makes this an even bigger bullshit parameter because they literally added the completely and utterly inaccurate detail just a few minutes after saying so.
Mister Fandango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 8 2013, 11:51 PM   #65
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: MYTHBUSTERS 10th Anniversary Season

Mister Fandango wrote: View Post
Again, the 3-hour limit has nothing to do with the myth. The myth was based on a real, verifiable event and in that real, verifiable event, no parachute was made and used in three hours. It was not a part of the myth, unless "Mythbusters themselves making shit up randomly and then trying to pass it off as an accurate part of the myth" counts as a myth.
You're missing the point. The myth is not the documented event. You can't call something a myth when you know it happened -- as you yourself admit in your next paragraph. A myth is an unproven claim, account, or belief. In this case, the myth was the criminal's belief that if he made a parachute out of supplies in the hotel room and jumped out the window, he could escape. Or, to come at it another way, what they were testing was his escape plan, just like in the many other prisoner-escape myths they've done over the years.

Sure, granted, they were testing whether it could've worked if he hadn't been interrupted after 3 hours. So sure, yeah, they could have defined their hypothetical scenario as "What if the police had waited longer than 3 hours and he hadn't been arrested before trying to jump?" But instead, they chose to define it as "What if he'd finished the parachute just before the police raided?" There could be multiple reasons they did that. The main one, of course, was that deadlines are dramatic and it would be more challenging for the team if they had a limited time to make their experimental designs. But maybe there were other reasons. It could be that in the actual case, the parachute was already completed when the police stormed the room, so that it was made in less than three hours. Or maybe they decided it was simpler to alter the behavior of just one person than of all the police officers and officials who were involved in the decision to storm the room.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 03:31 AM   #66
Mister Fandango
Fleet Captain
 
Mister Fandango's Avatar
 
Re: MYTHBUSTERS 10th Anniversary Season

Christopher wrote: View Post
In this case, the myth was the criminal's belief that if he made a parachute out of supplies in the hotel room and jumped out the window, he could escape. Or, to come at it another way, what they were testing was his escape plan, just like in the many other prisoner-escape myths they've done over the years.
Exactly.

And the 3-hour limit wasn't a part of it whatsoever.

Sure, granted, they were testing whether it could've worked if he hadn't been interrupted after 3 hours.
Exactly.

Because the 3-hour limit wasn't actually a part of the myth.

So sure, yeah, they could have defined their hypothetical scenario as "What if the police had waited longer than 3 hours and he hadn't been arrested before trying to jump?" But instead, they chose to define it as "What if he'd finished the parachute just before the police raided?"
Exactly.

They made shit up that had nothing to do with the myth. They might as well make it all up from this point onward if they're just going to keep pulling everything out of their ass like that. No need for researchers or anything. Just make it up.

Hell, they nearly did the same thing with the bike myth when Adam decried that because the first remote model went up on its back wheel it wouldn't could because, apparently, bikes only count as bikes when both wheels are touching the water. Even though it was still a bike riding across the water.
Mister Fandango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 04:05 AM   #67
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: MYTHBUSTERS 10th Anniversary Season

Oh, forget it. I don't know why you're making a federal case out of something so trivial.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 03:45 PM   #68
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: MYTHBUSTERS 10th Anniversary Season

It's what he does.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9 2013, 04:53 PM   #69
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: MYTHBUSTERS 10th Anniversary Season

Even so, that was a bit rude of me. Sorry. I'm recovering from minor surgery and I was irritable last night.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 03:24 AM   #70
Mister Fandango
Fleet Captain
 
Mister Fandango's Avatar
 
Re: MYTHBUSTERS 10th Anniversary Season

Christopher wrote: View Post
Oh, forget it. I don't know why you're making a federal case out of something so trivial.
The same reason you were, apparently. Sans medical reasons.

It's okay, I know you have a hard time admitting your wrong. It's no big deal. All is forgiven.
Mister Fandango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 03:55 AM   #71
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: MYTHBUSTERS 10th Anniversary Season

^Ohh, good grief. That's what I get for trying to extend an olive branch. I stand completely by my position that you're fundamentally missing the point and employing flawed reasoning. I just have better things to do than argue with a closed mind over something this ridiculous.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 03:13 AM   #72
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: MYTHBUSTERS 10th Anniversary Season

Moving on...

Crash cushion: I've never heard the term "T-bone" for a vehicle hitting the side of another vehicle at a right angle. It's the favorite car/truck crash method in Hollywood these days because of the visual shock of seeing the vehicle just coming right toward the camera (and the POV shot of same here was pretty scary), but somehow the name for that particular type of impact has never come up in any of the countless movies and shows that use it. Why is it called that? Is it just because the two vehicles are at a right angle like the shape of a T? Is there a reason for the "bone" part or is that just embellishment?

I see they're reusing the huge dump truck from the season premiere. But sadly, they didn't keep that nifty cab armor this time, replacing it with a battering ram. I'm a little surprised it was safe for Jamie and Adam to just crash into another car like that, but I guess it helped that the ram was attached to the hopper or bucket or whatever you call that part of a dump truck, so that assembly and its connections absorbed the bulk of the impact (plus I think the front plate deformed some on impact).

Ingenious plan for the overweight human analogues. Using foam rubber as a storage medium for water is a very clever approach. It is largely air, after all, so in a way it's a more robust water balloon. And I do have experience with how heavy waterlogged foam rubber can get, from that one time I dared to wash a foam rubber pillow (and man, did I get a workout trying to wring the thing out).

I'm kicking myself for not anticipating that the guy would actually be crushed worse whe sandwiched by the other two guys. I realized it about a minute before Jamie said it: water is incompressible! The reason their scale test didn't work was because the "car" they built didn't compress when it was struck, so all mini-Buster had to contend with was g-forces. But in the real crash, the car was crushed. As long as Syndaver Buster was alone in the back seat, he basically did just have g-forces to contend with, but he was crammed in between two large incompressible bodies that were forced directly against him by the compression of the car's frame, so he wasn't just knocked around but literally crushed. So of course it did a lot more damage. This was a case where the small-scale test just wasn't a valid analogue for the real event.

Favorite bits: A battering ram with SCIENCE on it, and Jamie saying "It's clobbering time."


"Hypermiling": I'm surprised the car got better mileage at 45 than 55. I recently learned that the reason the US highway speed limit was set at 55 MPH during the Carter Administration was not for safety reasons as I'd always thought, but because there was a nationwide fuel shortage at the time and the cars of the era got the best gas mileage at 55 MPH. It would be surprising if modern cars, which are theoretically more streamlined, would get their peak mileage at a lower speed.

That technique of accelerating and decelerating slowly is something I do anyway as a matter of course, particularly since I learned how much gas a car uses when it accelerates (courtesy of my aunt and uncle's hybrid minivan with a display that shows you your estimated gas mileage while you drive). I had no idea there was a nickname for it, though. I don't turn off the engine at stop lights, though I sometimes shift into neutral if it's a long light -- not sure how much of a difference that makes, though. And yet somehow I still manage to get worse mileage than I'd like (though I just filled up today and calculated my mileage, and I managed to maintain c. 20 MPG in mostly city driving since my last fill-up, which is better than usual for my car).

As for not braking on turns, no, thank you -- I'll take the loss for safety's sake. It'd be better to get a car with regenerative braking, as I think it's called -- that system that captures some of the lost energy from braking and puts it back in the battery or whatever.

And is removing the side mirror legal? That's surprising. I guess a lot of people get their mirrors knocked off by accident, so maybe it has to be legal so they're still able to drive; but it doesn't seem like it would be all that safe.

The disturbing thing was that the 5-years-older car (I think that's the one Tory was driving) got so much better mileage than the brand-new car. That seems like the wrong direction to be trending.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 04:03 PM   #73
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: MYTHBUSTERS 10th Anniversary Season

Surprised somebody hadn't heard T-boned before! Now you have to use the expression in a story.

Trucks ramming cars is always fun, and yeah, the big SCIENCE ram was hysterical! I too was surprised that it was actually worse with the extra people.

The mileage test was just as boring as all previous mileage tests, though. At least Kari was there to look at while I yawned. Driving at 45 is NOT an option on NJ highways. If you're not doing at least 65 here, you're causing a traffic jam. And anybody who doesn't take off the instant the light turns green will be getting a push.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14 2013, 11:53 AM   #74
Retu
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Finland
Re: MYTHBUSTERS 10th Anniversary Season

Christopher wrote: View Post
And is removing the side mirror legal? That's surprising. I guess a lot of people get their mirrors knocked off by accident, so maybe it has to be legal so they're still able to drive; but it doesn't seem like it would be all that safe.

The disturbing thing was that the 5-years-older car (I think that's the one Tory was driving) got so much better mileage than the brand-new car. That seems like the wrong direction to be trending.
In Finland you don't necessarily need to have the passenger side mirror if you have a rear view mirror installed and there is adequate visibility through the rear window. Conversely, you don't need to see through the rear window if you have the passenger side mirror installed. Regulations might be similar in California.

I think the reason why the newer car had so much worse mileage is that the newer car has a lot more electronics in it. Electric devices make the car heavier and consume more power, so the engine has to work harder, which consumes more gas.
__________________
"God runs electromagnetics by wave theory on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday,
and the Devil runs them by quantum theory on Tuesday, Thursday, and
Saturday."
-Sir William Bragg
Retu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15 2013, 12:23 AM   #75
WalkerBait
Trekker4747
 
WalkerBait's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City
Re: MYTHBUSTERS 10th Anniversary Season

Most anywhere I know of you only need the driver's side-view mirror. It used to, actually, be an OPTION to get the passenger mirror.
__________________
Just because it's futuristic doesn't mean it's practical.
WalkerBait is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.