Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

The Mythbusters Answer Your Questions 580

Posted by Zonk
from the poetry-in-motion dept.
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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Mythbusters Answer Your Questions

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Kari? (Score:3, Informative)

    by markild (862998) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @02:37PM (#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.
  • Blendo... (Score:3, Informative)

    by canning (228134) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @02:43PM (#14310879) Homepage
    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... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Wabin (600045) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @02:48PM (#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...

  • by xTown (94562) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @03:01PM (#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:Very Cool (Score:5, Informative)

    by brunes69 (86786) <slashdot@kei[ ]ead.org ['rst' in gap]> on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @03:10PM (#14311089) Homepage
    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.

  • by caldroun (52920) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @03:19PM (#14311167) Homepage Journal
    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]
  • Re:Very Cool (Score:2, Informative)

    by ImTheDarkcyde (759406) <ImTheDarkcyde@hotmail.com> on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @03:33PM (#14311271) Journal
    How on Earth could you forget Neal Stephenson!? [slashdot.org]
  • by syukton (256348) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @03:43PM (#14311361)
    Do you want all television to be subscription only, then?

    Yes.

    Cable was originally supposed to be that way. Eventually, however, the cable networks realised that they could have it both ways and further increase their revenue, so they added commercials to their broadcasting just like the broadcast networks were doing.

    I wouldn't mind paying $2 for an episode of a show that I want to see. I don't know how much these stations make on advertising revenue, but I would think that a million people paying $2 for an episode of a show would more than recoup the cost of making the episode (sets, actors, doughnuts).

    Consider that America has a population of something like 280 million. If we only assume that ten percent of the population are television-watchers who would be willing to pay $2 for an episode, that's still 28 million people. Five percent, even, would be 14 million. Whether it's 28 million or 14 million, though, at $2/show the potential profits could put some box office movies to shame, and would still cover all of the costs of making the show.

    I really don't get why they don't go to this format for content distribution, it makes complete sense. It's just less-expensive pay-per-view, really...

    (Wikipedia, tangentially, says that the 2005 estimated population is 297 million)
  • Re:Very Cool (Score:3, Informative)

    by sab39 (10510) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @03:49PM (#14311407) Homepage
    Um, what about Metallica? I'd say they're far more likely to be known by a non-slashdotter than any of your list...
  • Re:Very Cool (Score:5, Informative)

    by psykocrime (61037) <mindcrime@cpphac ... TS.uk minus poet> on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @03:55PM (#14311472) Homepage Journal
    Slashdot has also interviewed some presidential candidates (from 3rd parties), but I can't find the links.

    Mike Badnarik - Libertarian [slashdot.org]

    David Cobb - Green [slashdot.org]
  • Re:Very Cool (Score:2, Informative)

    by s4f (523726) * <steve@NospAM.stevefeinstein.com> on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @04:00PM (#14311520) Homepage
    Woz may have been somewhat involved in the creation of the Mac, I'm pretty sure he's more accurately credited as a Founder of Apple computer, and creator of the Apple ][.
  • Re:Computer Myths (Score:4, Informative)

    by Jerry (6400) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @04:01PM (#14311535)
    Back in the early 80's I was working on an IBM computer and discovered that if I POKE'd a certain value into a certain memory location, and another value into other memory location within 15 ms, the filiment in the CRT would flare up. If not interrupted it would have burned the filiment out.

    Today all one has to do is change the horz or vert sync ranges to some point out of range of the monitor and the monitor could be damaged. This is why about any description on setting up an xserver has warnings about the the horz and vert sync range setting:

    http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/haserver/RHHAS- 1.0-Manual/s1-cd-rom-gui-xconf.html [redhat.com]
    "Caution Caution

    Do not select a monitor similar to your monitor unless you are certain that the monitor you are selecting does not exceed the capabilities of your monitor. Doing so may overclock your monitor and damage or destroy it. ."
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @04:01PM (#14311539)
    Yeah, but that argument also works the other way around. The network always want to up prices or lower costs to increase their profit margin. Ideally they would only do reruns with tons of adds, and charge heftily.

    What the networks needs to realize (and soon!) is that bitching about their customers behaviour is not going to change anything.

    People who rip shows or download music always gets blamed that because of them, the shows will get worse and fewer and so on. While the opposite argument that (far) most people only do this because it's so easy and noone is providing competetive alternatives. The old school content providers constantly threathen their customers. Oh, we'll go out of business, we'll sue your a** off, we'll need to have music tax, we'll make cdwriter illegal and so on and so on.

    All the while, they are just dinosaurs looking up on the oncomming meteor, bitching. They need to evolve or die, which is the way it is supposed to be. Let's say the three bigges networks went out of business tomorrow, how many seconds do you think would pass before someone else tried to fill their place and provide content to a ever growing market? Sure, the new guy whould have to think of a better way to run their business, but so what?

    "But you can't compete with free". Sure you can! Provide better service, choice, convinience.
    Why do you there's a Tivo in every home? Because they get (some of) it. Its not free, but it's simple, cheap and it works. Why is it that NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX and say HBO havn't created a settop box that they give away to anyone who would want one and provide all pay-per-view TV. Wanna watch 10 episodes of Simpsons in a row? Sure, 5 bucks put on you phonebill/electric bill/visa whatever. Same thing without commercials? 7 bucks...
    "Shows cannot be produced that cheaply"...We'll I'm sure someone in India will be thrilled about that...

    The point is that they need to provide sometings that is simple and cheap enough not to worry about it and people WILL buy it. /cd
  • Re:BBC! (Score:3, Informative)

    by RexRhino (769423) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @04:35PM (#14311828)
    The BBC is no great thing. They have a few good shows, of course (which is great for people in North America who get the [best of] BBC as a few of the 500 commercial channels in their cable package). But a lot of the BBC is either cheap ripoffs of American shows, or insipid pseudo-intellectual crap so that the viewers can feel "cultured". Yes, "Doctor Who" is great in a Anglo-kitch kind of way, but for every "Doctor Who" there is a "Fat Friends" or "Space Cadets". And the BBC is absolutly monolithic in showing only the whitebread petty bougiouse government beurocrats eye view of the world. Give me commercial programing over the BBC any day.

    And the BBC gets a good chunck of it's revenue for licencing it's content on the free market abroad (probably more than it gets from licencing frees, although I couldn't find the exact numbers published online) - so as a poster child of socialism, the BBC is a bad example. For most of the world, the BBC is just another commercial network competing on the free market, not a government agency. I certainly don't pay any compulsary licence for the several BBC channels I recieve!
  • Re:Computer Myths (Score:3, Informative)

    by Fallen_Knight (635373) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @04:58PM (#14312029)
    Use a new computer before you talk.

    if you set the refresh rate on a new moniter to high it just turns off and puts up a message saying that its to high.
    Been like this for at least 5+ years, probably more.

    The warnings are in there because waaaaaaaaay back in the day, yes you could damage a moniter by setting the refresh to high, but no longer. On a mondren moniter its safe to safe there is NO way to damage it with normal hardware via software.
  • by bsartist (550317) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @05:08PM (#14312105) Homepage
    For the father of the seven-year-old who wants experiments to do at home - try watching Zoom, on PBS. It's all about doing experiments and other activities at home, documenting the results, and sending them to the web site [pbskids.org] to compare with other kids' results. Basically, it's teaching the foundations of the scientific method. (Full Disclosure - I was lead developer for the Zoom web site for two years.)
  • by Xibby (232218) <zibby+slashdot@ringworld.org> on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @05:59PM (#14312496) Homepage Journal
    I was in B&N just yesterday, and saw Jamie and Adam on the cover of Skeptic magazine. Magazine aside, one of the comments was that the Fedral Air Marshals had viewed footage from the Explosive Decompression myth in their training. They also mentioned that due to the shows success getting in touch with experts is much easier that it was for the first season.
  • Re:Kari? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @06:26PM (#14312726)
  • by SonicSpike (242293) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @06:36PM (#14312803) Homepage Journal
    A falling bullet actually killed Henry McDaniel of Orlando almost a year ago. It was big news locally. Here is the scoop:
    http://www.local6.com/news/4084756/detail.html [local6.com]

    Man Arrested In New Year's 'Falling Bullet' Death
    Bullet Traveled 1 Mile Before Piercing Man's Heart

    POSTED: 5:51 pm EST January 14, 2005
    UPDATED: 10:28 pm EST January 15, 2005

    ORLANDO, Fla. -- Orange County sheriff's deputies have arrested a 24-year-old man Friday who allegedly fired a bullet into the sky on New Year's Eve that later fell to earth and pierced a man's heart, according to Local 6 News.

    Henry McDaniel, 75, was walking in a neighborhood near Orlando just before midnight when he collapsed in the street, witnesses and sheriff's officials said. He had been at a party celebrating the New Year with friends and had decided to visit another house.

    Before he collapsed, McDaniel told friends who were standing with him near the street: "Boys, something hit me. Something hit me."

    Doctors at Orlando Regional Medical Center later discovered the bullet, which struck his heart.

    Officials blamed the death on a common but illegal practice by New Year's Eve revelers to shoot into the air and began an investigation.

    On New Year's Eve, an Orlando police officer responded to the 1000 block of Plymouth Avenue after reports of gunshots.

    The Orlando police officer reportedly confiscated a gun from Richardo Roach, 24, (pictured, left) and then contacted the Orange County Sheriff's Office after hearing about McDaniel's death. Roach reportedly admitted to firing the gun into the air, Local 6 News reported.

    The weapon was examined forensically by the Sheriff's Office and then by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. It was determined that the confiscated weapon fired the round that killed McDaniel.

    The bullet traveled more than one mile before it came down and hit McDaniel, Local 6 News reported.

    Roach was interviewed by officers and later arrested. He has been charged with manslaughter.
  • Re:Kari? (Score:5, Informative)

    by MikeFM (12491) on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @06:36PM (#14312809) Homepage Journal
    http://images.bpm4president.nl/karibyron2.jpg [bpm4president.nl] appears to be the real image? Or maybe on Mokkels [mokkels.nl]? The joys of Google.
  • by sl3xd (111641) * on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @06:52PM (#14312926) Journal
    Can't someone just point a really good telescope up there and get pictures of the stuff left behind?

    Unfortunatelly, no, because no such telescope exists. A great explanation of why is at http://www.ucolick.org/~robin/moonhoax.html [ucolick.org]
  • Re:Blendo... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @09:55PM (#14314123)
    I don't see Adam in this picture; which leads me to believe his involvement with Blendo was not significant. Of course, the two of them may have worked on some robot in the past; but probably not Blendo.

    http://www.battlebots.com/meet_the_robots3/meet_te am_profile.asp?id=47 [battlebots.com]
  • Re:Kari? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 21, 2005 @11:22PM (#14314581)
    I believe this to be real. It looks like her being cyber-scanned so they could morph her posterior into a set of overweight buttocks for the airline-toilet-suction myth.
  • More robot fighting (Score:3, Informative)

    by chroma (33185) <chroma&mindspring,com> on Thursday December 22, 2005 @03:21AM (#14315511) Homepage
    I'm sure that this comment won't be read by many since I'm posting this late, but I'd like all the fighting robot fans to know that many of the Battlebots competitors are still out there. Check out the Robot Fighting League:
    http://botleague.org/ [botleague.org]

"No problem is so formidable that you can't walk away from it." -- C. Schulz

Working...