Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

The Mismatched 'MythBusters' 473

biohack writes "Most fans of the MythBusters would agree that the two hosts of the show, Adam and Jamie, are 'diametrically opposed in every aspect of their lives'. The Christian Science Monitor story about the MythBusters explores the connection between the backgrounds of the hosts (who knew that Jamie had a degree in Russian literature?) and their creative differences on and off camera." From the article: "It took Hyneman a of couple years to feel comfortable talking in front of a camera, let alone to strangers on the street. 'You have to remember that I'm a guy who is happiest in a dark room just thinking,' he says. 'I'm not a sociable person. I don't like to talk.' Savage, on the other hand, is outgoing. They're clearly the Oscar and Felix of myth busting ... 'Jamie is all about total, complete, and utter control. Thinking first and then acting. Adam is about acting first and then thinking.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Mismatched 'MythBusters'

Comments Filter:
  • by Cheapy ( 809643 ) on Thursday September 14, 2006 @11:47PM (#16110786)
    I think a trip to wikipedia should dispell your ignorant view.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_Mon itor [wikipedia.org]
  • by rlp ( 11898 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @12:02AM (#16110851)
    Is it any wonder, then, that Jamie would grow facial hair? It is well known that one reason people grow facial hair is to build a personal "wall" between themselves and the world. Behind this wall, they can smile, frown, grimace, snicker, and otherwise run the emotional gamut without revealing themselves to others.

    Cryptonomicon - Charlene vs. Randy
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15, 2006 @12:02AM (#16110854)
    Obviously you didn't read too much from the article, since both are answered in the first paragraph of the entry:
    Despite its name, the Monitor was not established to be a religious-themed paper, nor does it directly promote the doctrine of its patron church. However, at its founder Eddy's request, a daily religious article has appeared in every issue of the Monitor. Eddy also required the inclusion of "Christian Science" in the paper's name, over initial opposition by some of her advisors who thought the religious reference might repel a secular audience.

    As to your second point, Webster's dictionary has a very interesting definition of science:
    1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

    We could easily include any metaphysical musings about faith healing. So for all of the crap, you didn't get much eh?
  • Kari, not Keri. (Score:5, Informative)

    by antdude ( 79039 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @12:19AM (#16110938) Homepage Journal
    Her name is spelled Kari. :)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15, 2006 @12:27AM (#16110971)
    A ventilation system is designed around good airflow which usually involves smooth surfaces aside from odd instances where a precisely textured surface reduces friction, not likely in ventilation systems.

    Adam, the idiot protagonist, had a better design because his exploit involved an unavoidable property of ventilation.

    False. Fiberglass duct board is the obvious exception (not metallic - save a nearly paper thin, foil-like liner - and not smooth) - it would have foiled both mythbusters. Also metal duct is sometimes lined with fiberglass on the inside. This increases thermal efficiency and reduces the transmission of noise. The "smoothness" is a property of metal and not a necessary property of an air duct. As a PhD engineer who knows fluid dynamics, I doubt the smoothness has a substantial positive affect compared to benefits gained from insulated duct. It certainly is not a required feature just as water still flows in rust-crudded pipe.

    Why is this on slashdot anyway?

    So idiots can learn a thing or two.

  • M5 Industries (Score:4, Informative)

    by AugustZephyr ( 989775 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @12:35AM (#16111007)
    For your information here is a link to M5 Industries (Jamie Hyneman's) special effects shop: http://www.m5industries.com/ [m5industries.com]
    And in case you were wondering they do not give tours or accept job applications. :(
    Adam also has his own personal website: http://www.adamsavage.com/ [adamsavage.com]

    Can anyone see these two hanging out after work? I don't think they get along very well. Adam is constantly making fun of the moustache, and Jamie obviously gets frustrated with Adam's antics.
  • by Greego ( 698947 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @12:40AM (#16111033)
    *sigh*

    methane
    /'meethayn/
    patent
    /'paytnt/

    from an Aussie dictionary. The narrator's an Aussie, using an American accent. It's not mispronunciation, it's just not the American pronunciation of those words. Patent and Methane with short vowel sounds would be considered mispronunciations here. It's an *Aussie* show, with American hosts and locations.
  • by spoco2 ( 322835 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @12:50AM (#16111074)
    "PAY-TENT, PAY-TENTLY, PAY-TENTS"

    That is how we say it in Australia, and it's how it's said in England, where the word comes from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=patent&x= 0&y=0 [reference.com] I see that you say patent like, pat-ent, which is fine I guess, makes more sense from the way it's spelt. But really, the US is a treasure trove of horribly mangled english words.

    I happy that you at least get one example of hearing a word pronounced in a way that you don't like, we get FAR more US media here than you get Australian/English media, and we cringe A LOT!
  • Kari Byron (Score:5, Informative)

    by highwaytohell ( 621667 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @12:54AM (#16111093)
    For anyone who is even remotely interested, Kari Byron in FHM [fhmus.com]
  • by joggle ( 594025 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @01:50AM (#16111286) Homepage Journal

    I doubt the smoothness has a substantial positive affect compared to benefits gained from insulated duct

    Yes, you are 100% correct. I'm sure designing air ducts is similar to designing wind tunnels (which I did back in college). It doesn't matter if the wall surface is smooth or not (within reason). The air is going to slow down when close to it regardless of how smooth it is.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15, 2006 @02:15AM (#16111349)
    They were recently raided by OSHA and some other letter-agencies. Apparently they televised something that got someone's attention.

    Expect to see FAR more safety glasses and hardhats in future episodes.
  • by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @02:36AM (#16111408)
    A MB episode is 1 hour. They do these tests over a series of days. WHat do you think they do on the time they aren't taping? Do they maybe... repeat experiments? Yup, as they've publicly stated, they do. But you know what- watching them swipe 500 magnetic strips to test the eelskin wallet would have been bad TV. So they show one or two and move on to something more interesting. Showing 20 hours of tests may be more scientific, but it'd be a boring damn show. I'm happy to know that they do it and just show us representative results.

    Oh, and on the Mentos episode- they did check combinations of ingredients, and specifically stated that a combo of the 3 produced the best results.
  • Re:What about... (Score:2, Informative)

    by kyjl ( 965702 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @02:39AM (#16111420)
    4chan.

    In which case, there's porn of EVERYTHING there.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15, 2006 @02:40AM (#16111423)
    This show is not scientific, but educational. They teach doing science, not the end result.

    And they do this VERY well.

    Science is thinking AND just plain trying stupid things. I know a lot of scientists, and thinking things through is just half the work. The worst scientists are those that always think their way out of experiments.

    Also, if your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a different experiment (Rutherford). Antibiotics worked wonders. No statistics needed. The tree-trunk cannon just worked, but was dangerous. The plywood parachute didn't work, period. No need to do statistics on the type of wood.

    From the show any 10 year old will understand that some things just plain work (tree-trunk cannon, table-tennis ball lifting of ships), just never work (using a plywood parachute), or just might have worked, sort of (building a rocket with laughing gass).

    But the most valuable lesson for my kid is the "don't try this at home lesson":
    If things could in any way go wrong, or burn, or explode, keep a healthy distance.

    And it just may save my adventurous kid some very expensive lessons later on.
  • by Gideon Fubar ( 833343 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @02:42AM (#16111433) Journal
    Here you go.. Red Kryptonite [wikipedia.org]

    oh.. here's some more [wikipedia.org]..

    you see where it says Media companies of Australia [wikipedia.org]?

    I think it's pretty obvious, btw, that Adam and Jamie are not always the best of friends. They constantly bicker when things are not going well, and there have been times when their underlying tension has put them in dangerous situations... e.g Jamie driving one of their remote controlled cars just that little bit too fast, with Adam stuck in the back. I'm sure it's all in good fun, until they blow themselves up.
  • by Lactoso ( 853587 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @02:45AM (#16111440) Homepage
    Adam actually used to work for Jamie (nothing like a control freak for a boss...) way before the concept of the show was, uhh, conceived. To Jamie's credit, apparently the show's producers approached Jamie first and he recommended Adam. But there have been several episodes where Jamie lords his status as 'da boss' over Adam and a couple of others.

    Lots more info on the crew and their history can be found here [discovery.com].

  • Re:What about... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15, 2006 @03:29AM (#16111557)
    http://www.bikinipageone.com/t06/alex_simwise/14.h tm [bikinipageone.com]

    Tada...

    Its not here, but looks just like her.
  • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @03:45AM (#16111598)
    They determined that it does seem to work, but that it's not worth the expense of the filters. Also they didn't test to see if it was filtering out the alcohol. I wouldn't think so, but you would want to check. I mean sure you could make vodka have lest tate by filtering it just to water, but that wouldn't do much for you.

    Also a filtered vodka like that will taste neutral, not really good. Most of the premium vodkas are made such as to have some flavour to them, what flavour differes from vodka to vodka. I've found that if you want a real falvourless one, try Finlandia. It's not cheap stuff, but not premium stuff either. It really doesn't seem to have any taste at all.
  • For most things (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @03:52AM (#16111617)
    Prescription glasses made of polycarbonate are fine instead. I work for an engineering department and the rule is safety glasses at all time in labs, unless you wear normal glasses. Believe me, our building manager is a stickler, he wouldn't let us do it if it weren't kosher (we are a government institution and all that).

    You'll notice when there's a larger hazard they either put it behind a shield or don more protective gear. However for normal things like soldering or machining, standard glasses are fine.

    Also you have to understand that OSHA regs are to protect employees from employers primarily. It's to make sure your employer can't force you to work in unsafe conditions without proper gear. They don't mandate you follow them yourself if you are self employed (which Jamie is). The reason they force OSHA stuff on us isn't because they are worried the cops will come and arrest us for not following it, but because they worried we'd get hurt and sue them and/or they'd get fined.
  • She's so overrated. (Score:2, Informative)

    by thrashaholic ( 995412 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @03:57AM (#16111629)
    Cute? Yea. (Probably not a real red head)

    But if you notice, she never really does much of anything. Boooring.

    Now Scotty, she's the hottie. She can weld, wrench, machine, and I betcha she can ride a bike. She has more ink than Kari to boot.

    That's a real woman.

  • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @03:58AM (#16111634)
    Adam is a props man. If you look at his credits, that's primarily what he's done. For example a number of the devices in Bicentennial man are his designs and constructions. He's not really "special effects" as most people think of it. He's done that too, but his main thing is design work. Hence, build jobs are his thing. Jamie is the gadget guy, that's what M5 is known for. Their 7-up attack machine being my favourite. When someone needs a new functional device made that hasn't existed before, Jamie is the kind of guy they seek out.

    That's one of the reasons that Adam seems to be 2nd place to Jamie for a lot of the things they do is it's not his specialty. Heck, that's why they shoot the show at M5. This is the kind of stuff they do anyhow. A company approaches them and says "We want something that can do this," for example a vending machine that can attack people. They then set about scavenging that together and making it work. Mythbusters is just about applying those skills to a myth, and doing it on a more limited budget.

    I personally think it's not a bad combo both personality wise and skill wise. Jamie on his own would probably make for a real boring show (he apparently had them get Adam on board for that reason) but you need someone who's got applied problem solving skills like that to make it happen. Also in addition to making the show more fun, Adam does do really well when they need some kind of setup designed and constructed.
  • Re:What about... (Score:5, Informative)

    by mobby_6kl ( 668092 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @04:37AM (#16111729)
    Today is your lucky day, here are the FHM pics. [fhmus.com]

    I'm pretty sure they used to have even more pics though ;-|
  • by O.W.M ( 884392 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @04:58AM (#16111771)
    It deprives them of important social interaction with their peers and helps build independence from their parents.

    Now that's a myth that really needs to be put to the test and busted in Mythbusters (as it already has in the studies that's been made on the subject).

    /O - homeschool father.

  • by ozmanjusri ( 601766 ) <aussie_bob@hotmail . c om> on Friday September 15, 2006 @05:48AM (#16111886) Journal
    it's not like there's no evidence that a small defect can cause catastrophic results when travelling at that speed.

    That wasn't a small defect, it was the whole bloody cargo door! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Fligh t_811 [wikipedia.org].

  • by orcrist ( 16312 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @05:55AM (#16111906)
    That is how we say it in Australia, and it's how it's said in England, where the word comes from

    Where the word comes from?!?! Words don't come from places, they come from people. There is no geographic affinity to a word any more than you would expect a child to genetically diverge from his parent merely because he moves away.

    This is one of my pet peeves when discussions of "proper" English come up. The British isles do not have some kind of magic authority because of being the place where English evolved from some old Germanic dialects with a heavy influence from the Normans. That's as absurd as saying people in Africa are closer to 'original' humans because humans evolved there. Only it's more so since languages tend to change more *slowly* in colonies and such.

    Wait, I have a better example for people on Slashdot: A software engineering team at company A develops a large complex system. They split, with half the team going to a start-up, company B, taking a copy of the system (let's say it's open source, so no license issues) with them. 30 years later all the people from the original team have retired and handed over their work to their respective replacements. Both companies have developed their respective copies of the system further and continue to do so though the original developers are long gone. Is the version maintained at Company A the more "correct" version merely by virtue of Company A being "where it came from"?

    Specifically, in the case of English, the dialects spoken on the British isles have been very heavily influenced by the mainland European languages, which has led to e.g. the soft "r" at the end of syllables in most British dialects (Irish English is one exception). The "r" used in most American dialects (Boston being a famous exception), is actually closer to "original English", and is the way Shakespeare probably pronounced it.

    That doesn't mean that one is more correct than the other since there are also examples which go the other way, it just shows how absurd it is to treat natural languages as if they had a pedigree, or as if they were the implementation of an ISO standard.

    -chris

    P.S. Oh, and the word 'Patent' doesn't come from England, it comes from Rome, so we should actually ask a Roman how to pronounce it, right? ;-)
  • by O.W.M ( 884392 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @05:57AM (#16111910)
    Gary Knowles, U. of Mich. did just that in his study. He interviewed 53 adults who were homeschooled as children.

    Summary: http://www.athomeinamerica.com/Article_4YearStudy. mv [athomeinamerica.com]
  • by glesga_kiss ( 596639 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @08:28AM (#16112400)
    The reason there's an Australian accent over the top is probably because you're watching it in Australia, where, because they've dubbed the narrative, the broadcaster is allowed to classify it as "local content"

    They do that in the UK as well. It's actually a better show that way; it loses some on the US-style "shazzam!!!" that is popular and replaces it with a more BBC-like mellow presentation. It comes off quite well; I grabbed the U.S. season one off bittorrent a while ago and while most of the content is good, I just couldn't stand the presentation. Edit it around a bit and add a more adult naration and it actually turns into a show I'd regularly watch.

  • Re:bust nothing (Score:3, Informative)

    by RzUpAnmsCwrds ( 262647 ) on Friday September 15, 2006 @02:26PM (#16115377)
    Yes, exactly - Mythbusters isn't exactly what I'd call "scientific". Take it for what it is - an interesting and highly entertaining TV show. One of the best on television.

    People who say there's nothing good on TV don't watch TV.

"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde

Working...