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.'"
For the longest time (Score:2)
To my surprise, they're not.
What about... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm pretty sure they used to have even more pics though
Kari, not Keri. (Score:5, Informative)
Isn't conflict the first rule of drama/comedy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps their opposite personalities are one reason they got gig.
The show needs someone like Adam (Score:5, Interesting)
Adam makes the show watchable because his idea's and his personality make it interesting TV, while you have Jamie at the same time showing you the right way to do things.
This combination is what makes good viewing and evenly balanaced between entertainment/humor and education.
I would hate to watch the show with someone who couldn't stand up to Jamie, Adam does this well and thats why the show works so well. If Jamie was allowed complete control everytime, it would be boring.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's a large amount of work, and a relatively simple build (an uncomplex design that doesn't involve going back to the drawing board) Adam's the one to do it.
Well you have to understand (Score:5, Informative)
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:The show needs someone like Adam (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree. Jamie is a great engineer with an intelligent and accepting, if dour personna, while Adam makes the great engineering more tasteful by interjecting lots of humor.
But I love the show! As a homeschool father, I heavily restrict TV and video games for the fall and winter seasons, but for a few shows. Mythbusters is among my favorite - such a spirit of experimentation and discovery!
It's reality TV that doesn't suck.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
-If
Homeschooled child with poor social skills above! (Score:3, Funny)
But other than that, home school is great! You'll never have to worry about scoring with the hot girl in your science class 'cause she's your sister.
Saw an interview with Jamie (Score:3, Interesting)
He said, "I started to think about it, and realized, 'Hey, I'm pretty boring.'"
So he said he'd do it of Adam was his co-host.
However well they do or do not get along on the set, they KNOW they make a great on air pairing.
another myth busted (Score:5, Funny)
slow news day.
They're interesting... (Score:2)
I like it when stuff explodes for the sake of seeing something explode.
Something else... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then when the show reaches the finale and something blows up, they both cackle like little kids and seem like best buddies.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
With such a high-paying gig like that, I'd love to watch over his shoulder when he enters his PIN number at the ATM machine.
Imagine working for Jamie? (Score:3, Informative)
Lots more info on the crew and their history can be found here [discovery.com].
Adam & Jamie - Friendship? (Score:2, Interesting)
Still, I think it's a *great* show, and I enjoy it a lot. Some of the humor they've added is great. I think they have the right combination of supporting staff, now, and I hope they don't
Re:Adam & Jamie - Friendship? (Score:2, Interesting)
While I've known some Australians to pronounce it "meth-ane", I've also known some to say "mee-thane" like he did there.
Re:Adam & Jamie - Friendship? (Score:2)
Re:Adam & Jamie - Friendship? (Score:5, Informative)
methane
patent
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.
Re:Adam & Jamie - Friendship? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Adam & Jamie - Friendship? (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Adam & Jamie - Friendship? (Score:5, Informative)
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
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!
Re:Adam & Jamie - Friendship? (Score:5, Informative)
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?
It's the main reason why the show works (Score:5, Insightful)
And not just the entertainment side, mind you. The science side also benefits from the mix of personalities.
Some problems require finesse and fine planning. Others require repeated blows with a hammer. I think that's why the producers occasionally pit Adam vs. Jamie on some myth-type task. To see which works best for a given situation: The Thinker, or the X-Factor.
It's a damn good show on a lot of levels, really.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that the reason they are able to pull off most of the stunts they do is by bouncing ideas off each other. Their conflicting styles allow for different points of view. Alone, I doubt either would be nearly as successful in such a tight time frame.
I'm sure given unlimited time and money, either might be successful on their own, but they have a finite budget and a shooting schedule. They usually have to revise their initial design and
Moo (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, this is news?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Looking for the 'obvious' tag... (Score:3, Interesting)
Anybody who has watched the show should be able to figure out that Jamie is an introverted control freak with a passion for safety and thinking things through. Savage is an extroverted exhibitionist who baresly remembers safety or forethought. Together they make a great odd-couple/buddy-buddy duo. I think part of the reason to watch the show is observe the interactions between the two hosts.
The addition of Grant (the geek), Tory & Kari (Joe & Jane public?) have been positive for the show. Having the two groups intermix on different projects almost lets you see the dynamics of group interaction.
I saw Adam one time... (Score:5, Funny)
He replied "How's it goin'?" And I didn't say anything. I just stood there.
I think he was referring to me in that article. People who say "Hey" and nothing else.
Not an exciting story but what the hell...
Re:I saw Adam one time... (Score:5, Funny)
Degree in Russian literature (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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'
Dodgy science aside... (Score:4, Insightful)
M5 Industries (Score:4, Informative)
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.
bust nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it just me or is the "scientific method" these guys employ full of it.
I watched all of three shows, and each of them had incredible experimental flaws in them. If it wasn;t so long ago, I'd recount exactly the flaws I saw, but I forget.
Is it entertaining, perhaps, are they busting myths, no way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it just me or is the "scientific method" these guys employ full of it.
I watched all of three shows, and each of them had incredible experimental flaws in them. If it wasn;t so long ago, I'd recount exactly the flaws I saw, but I forget.
Is it entertaining, perhaps, are they busting myths, no way.
They work under a logical fallacy of "if we can't do it, then group X couldn't possibly have done it. And they often confuse scientific concepts like "heat" vs "temparature" when trying to make a steam canno
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
People who say there's nothing good on TV don't watch TV.
Kari Byron (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Kari Byron (Score:4, Insightful)
I love this show but it's being "MTV'd" :( (Score:5, Insightful)
Also it was very clear that Jamie had an introverted personality and is a smart thinking kind of guy.
Anyhow some of those originals, they spent the WHOLE EPISODE on a single myth and you got to see fascinating detail on what they were trying to do, plus I felt I was learning a little bit - not a lot but a little bit.
Now, it seems to me that with the Mythterns (Kari etc) and the amount of stuff they put in an episode it's all somewhat slickly edited for the masses.
Also the narrator, who I liked originally, he FUCKING REPEATS EVERYTHING THEY SAY! etc, there's an interview with Grant he says "Ok so we need to put the flux capacitor in Jamie's whoo hooo in order to see if X will happen" - then the goddam narrator says "Grant has just told us they need to get that flux capacitor in Jamie's whoo hoo, if he gets this right we will see if X happens"
I KNOW HE JUST TOLD ME YOU FUCKER! >:(
(He also summarises what happened 5 minutes before the commercial break for another 30 seconds after each break)
Why do they have to dumb it down for the lowest common denominator??? (sp?)
The editing makes it so that they break up the myths and split them up across the episode but I find that annoying, I want them put together like the older episodes.
What happened to us seeing Jamie and Adam in a scrap yard looking for things! Sure it's not important but it was interesting damnit.
Also, I feel Jamie is being forced to behave in a way which is not normally him, you could clearly see in around mid season 2 he was somewhat agitated at this and uncomfortable, he's coming out of his skin a little bit now.
Also Adam is NOT as stupid as he's being portrayed, he's a very cluey guy and more outgoing than Jamie but I dunno - he's been turned into the "homer" of the show.
Ultimately a lot of documentaries on discovery suck now and heck I don't even get the full range of discovery over here in Australia.
Docu's used to be slow paced, informative and somewhat quiet, mythbusters didn't exactly follow this formula since it's not a docu but it was simpler and more charming originally.
Now documentaries need to have hardcore music and cgi sections, instead of just showing what is happening or speculating on what might happen from a proffessor no no they have to render something add that boomy music, have the excitable sounding narrator go at it hardcore etc.
(Don't get me wrong, I do love stuff like megastructures and so on, but still the editing seems so damned dramatic for dopey people)
Before anyone says it, I'm 28, not 50 and I still recall the good old days of somewhat intelligent television.
Re:I love this show but it's being "MTV'd" :( (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny, I'm almost 50 and I don't remember any good old days of somewhat intelligent television...
I have to admit, as infotainment goes, "Mythbusters" does a pretty good job, not quite but almost as good as the old "Mr. Wizard" or "Bill Nye the Science Guy" shows.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Saw Jamie the other day (Score:3, Interesting)
Good scientist, bad scientist (Score:3, Funny)
One's a clean-cut professional cop who plays it by the rules. The other's a wild rookie who'll use every trick in the book to get to the truth!
Re:Beard as personal wall (Score:5, Insightful)
His science is far from "stellar". Often, it's quite poor. One should never watch MythBusters for anything but its entertainment value. More often than not they completely misunderstand and incorrectly describe scientific and engineering concepts that are in reality quite simple.
Their methodologies make many professional product testers and scientists cringe. We can clearly see their mistakes, but those who don't have much scientific training may not. To take their "findings" seriously is a big mistake, but many people do it anyway.
Their show is far more educational and entertaining than most of the shit that is on TV. But the educational value it does provide is quite petty, and often quite bad, as it misinforms the viewer.
Re:Beard as personal wall (Score:5, Funny)
But all of that is made up for when they blow up cement trucks.
Some things aren't supposed to be serious (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't it quite obvious that "entertainment value" is the primary purpose of the show? Mythbusters wasn't ever supposed to be a seriously educational show. It is interesting entertainment, like the geek equivalent to professional wrestling--just like WWE isn't real wrestling, Mythbusters isn't real science.
Their methodologies make many professional product testers and scientists cringe. We can clearly see their mistakes, but those who don't have much scientific training may not.
Well, the methodologies of professional researchers would make the average TV viewer fall asleep--even the average Discovery Channel viewer. The majority of viewers will indeed miss the flaws in their inivestigations, but it isn't hard research. For the minority who DO catch the flaws and care enough to be bothered by them write Adam and Jamie and popint out their oversights--they don't do much to hide that fact and have on occasion revisited myths.
But the educational value it does provide is quite petty, and often quite bad, as it misinforms the viewer.
Well, considering that Adam and Jamie are not acutally professional scientists or educators, but rather skilled technicians in the field of motion picture effects, I do not think most people would rely on their show for serious education purposes (though it might be great material for high school science classes for critical analysis of their investigative methods--where they go right and wrong). If someone comes away from that show unquestionably believing everything in it is completely untained, scientific conclusions then they have more to worry about than being misinformed--they need work in their skills at critical thinking.
I for one just like to watch the banter between Adam and Jamie, and seeing things explode, burn and crash. And Kari getting painted silver, and, well, being eye candy. They should hire another red-head geek-chickie...like Kate Botello perhaps.
Kari and Kate and a tub full of ballistics gel....mmmmmm.....
Re:Some things aren't supposed to be serious (Score:5, Insightful)
When you say, "oh, the mythbusters got it wrong here, here, here and here" then you're proving the point that what they're doing is for science since they followed the scientific method of documenting and reporting what they expected, what they saw, and how they came to those conclusions. It might not be as thorough as youd' want it to be, but the fact is, science isn't e=mc^2, it's the proof that e=mc^2.
Re:Beard as personal wall (Score:5, Interesting)
For instance, earlier today I saw a guy online complain about how the busted the myth that shooting people with bullets will knock them back. He said that any police officer knows that when you shoot someone they get knocked down, but what he didn't realize was that the Mythbusters were testing if bullets could actually knock you back like in the movies (though plate glass windows, or even just literally pushing you back), not if someone shot with a bullet would fall down. I think the Mythbusters got it spot on, and they even did the math on the show to point out that the physics aren't with having a handgun bullet actually propel a person on planet Earth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Shame on me for saying without supporting link, but iirc if a person is rendered suddenly unconscious while standing, or is shot dead instantly (etc) they will fall "forward" instead of backwards, though most of the momentum is downward.
But while we're at nitpicking the nitpickers... The purpose of Mythbusters isn't science itself, but to engage people in science. To entertain foremost, but there's a background hope your 8 to 18 year old kid will say "Waittaminute" at something, look at it, and do their
You are a gun expert (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember that episode and it was Jamie, who grew up in a farm and knows guns, who scolded Adam for doing that. Their showing that must have been exactly for showing it's dangerous. When they do something that's truly dangerous with guns or explosives they always call an expert.
I think the most valuable lesson one gets from the Mythbusters is that one needs not be an expert to do some thinking. True, anybody could look up in a table to see how long a bullet travels in water. But how were those data obtained in the first place? That's the "scientific" value of the show. When a new field is being explored, there are no experts and one must invent new ways to test things.
Re:These guys and guns (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Beard as personal wall (Score:5, Insightful)
What is science? The distinguishing characteristic is that it comes as close as possible to the ideal of "gather data - hypothesize - test hypothesis" feedback loop as possible. There are some additional useful criteria, like using controls, etc., but the feedback loop is the basic element of science.
By this criteria, this is nearly the most scientific show on television, and they've gotten better in the past couple of seasons too. For actually showing the scientific process, I can forgive much.
(The process may not always be perfect, but news flash: If you think every peer-reviewed study has perfect, impeccable controls and rock-solid statistics and complete coverage of the relevant topics, you're on crack. Real experiments often look uncomfortably like a Mythbusters production. No fair holding Mythbusters to semi-mythical ideals when "real" scientists generally don't make it either.)
The other aspect of science is the large body of knowledge and experience that has been built up by the human race by the repeated application of that feedback loop. Sometimes they do OK, sometimes they do poorly; the farther they stray from application of mechanical principles, the worse they tend to do. (On the other hand, they sometimes surprise me; IIRC, they pointed out that sharp pointy things attract lightning better than flat things in one of the lightning episodes, which is something I only covered in calc-based electromagnetism in college and I daresay most people have never been exposed to.)
Yes, they aren't perfect in this department. However, I'm not sure it's possible for them to be perfect. First, I've seen a lot of so-called criticisms that are more wrong than the show is, so for those people even if the show actually improved, they'll believe it's getting worse. Second, by its very nature, it covers an extremely large array of topics, and you're just not going to be able to put together a team of experts in chemistry (all kinds), physics (any kind you'd encounter in normal life), psychology (all kinds), history (all kinds, including the actual building of historical devices), and random misc. (all kinds), and still be able to afford to put it on TV.
Personally, I think they're better than nothing, and doing a decent job, all things considered.
Could they be better in theory? Certainly! Could you get much better in practice? That's much less clear. It's not fair to compare Mythbusters to the show that exists in your head that has an infinite budget and unlimited access to the best experts of all kinds. That's not an alternative.
Ok, I'm going to speak to this one... (Score:3, Interesting)
To make such a leap on that basis alone is prejudicial - plain and simple.
If an obviously intellegent person tries to explain something that the person he's talking to already knows, he will often assume he's being "co
Re:Beard as personal wall (Score:4, Interesting)
That may be the case, but your average viewer has an even poorer concept of science, so at least its making people interested in something other that which cute intern is going to sleep with over-endowed doctor on Gray's Anatomy.
Matt (Plasma Physicist, Science Evangelist and Mythbusters Fan)
Rubbish (Score:5, Interesting)
The show is entertaining, and has a science flavour. It is better to have light-weight science that people watch, than heavy-weight stuff that only the scientific elite understand. I see it as a kids show, meant to recruit the next generation of scientists. Sure the science is simplistic, but at least there is some science on TV.
Re:Rubbish (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly, this is why you should have set your sights higher. Say... a degree in Physics.
Re:Rubbish (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Beard as personal wall (Score:5, Informative)
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.
I realize you are trolling but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything about the way they produce and edit the show says edutainment. Also keep in mind each one hour show (minus commercials) covers between three to five different "myths". Their accuracy of measurement is dependent on the topic. In your example, we have a "fun" myth with low danger. Plus we have a high probablity of it looking cool on tape whether it works or not, which it probably will since the internet has several videos. I'd say "I think that was about twice as high" is a reasonable margin of error in that scenario.
Second, numbers and graphs don't mean much to most normal people. Take the "Will driving fast on a washboard make the ride smoother?" segment. They had some very good data from an accelerameter that actually had them questioning their perceptions. They also had a pyramid of wine glasses filled with water. The splashing water is easier for a normal person to translate into something they can relate to. A "horizontal acceleration of blah point blah blah m/s^2" means little, while most people have some idea the amount of force it takes to shake some water out of a glass (even if they don't know what force is).
In fact I thought they did a pretty good job of using the scientific method in that segment. When they got data they didn't expect they refined their experiment to eliminate variables and try to narrow in on what was *generally* happening.
Also I think when you hear someone mention science its usually Adam. Its safe to say that Adam doesn't always think things through. My guess is that what Adam usually means is he is *using* science, not *doing* science. Most people do not differentiate using scientific knowledge and using the scientific method. The show often uses scientific knowledge to make educated guesses about what will happen. Basically this is used to narrow "likely" outcomes. They use a fair amount of scientific knowledge for safety reasons as well. I'll even grant you that probably a good deal of the "using science" is some anonymous producer calling up a subject matter expert.
I will grant that they are taking short cuts. However, off hand I can't think of an episode where Jaime has stated that they were publishing their results in a peer reviewed journal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So because you only saw them do one test means they couldn't possibly have done more? Remember, this is an editied show, it's not live... they don't just turn on the cameras and they have an hour to do whatever.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not claiming they're the mos
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the Aloha Air incident, the hole was actual fairly small, but it was the body
Re: (Score:2)
That, or hide a weak chin.
Re: (Score:2)
I grow facial hair because I am a lazy basterd who can't be bothered to shave in the morning (I'm busy finding coffee). So I shave every few days once it gets annoying enough.
So there.
nevermind my manic/sociopathic disdain for the (frightfully) average driver who seems to think that driving in the median and sidewalk is acceptable. (you all now know my pet peeve, that and tailgating, but a sunroof and various objects fixes the latter quickly).
-nB
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Another reason: to look fucking awesome! http://www.worldbeardchampionships.com/ [worldbeard...nships.com]
Re:Beard as personal wall (Score:4, Informative)
Cryptonomicon - Charlene vs. Randy
Re:Beard as personal wall (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh please, because he doesn't like talking to people, let alone in front of the camera? That's idiotic. I hate talking to people, and I can't imagine being paid enough to talk on camera; I'm no where near a sociopath.
Of the two, I identify most with Jamie. I "get" him. Despite what the current MTV generation would have you believe, neither he nor myself have any notable mental conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Love it; "You must conform. If you don't, you are somehow mal-adjusted. "
I'd argue that anybody who doesn't have an adversion to socializing in todays society is mal-adjusted. Look at all the scary shit out there; What sane person would subject themselves to that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Beard as personal wall (Score:4, Interesting)
What a load of absolute bollocks. They're just normal, average blokes with enough wit and luck to be earning good money doing what they want to do and having fun at the same time.
If the personalities they present to the camera are real, and there's no reason to think otherwise, they show just as much compassion, concern for others and acceptance of personal responsibility as anyone.
Judging from family members (Score:2, Interesting)
Eh, what do I care, as long as I'm not living within blast range of him?
Re:Does anyone get the impression.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I always got the impression that it was some sort of high-functioning autism such as Asperger syndrome but then, IANAD (...doctor)
Social withdrawal or discomfort in social situations, pedantic mannerisms, some odd habits based on views rooted in pure practicality (anyone remember that ep where his lunch was basically a sack of nutrition?), and a fairly intense engineering interest might all, when taken together, point that way.
What does it matter? He seems like a decent guy and he's certainly and entertaining presenter (on what is, essentially, an entertainment show rather than a rigorously investigated scientific journal)
Re:Does anyone get the impression.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Social withdrawal and discomfort is a trait of both, while pedantic behavior and odd habits is a sign of OCD.
But like you said, does it really matter? I guess 4/5 of the population could be diagnosed with something if we just look close enough.
Re:Does anyone get the impression.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does anyone get the impression.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
1. Basement Dweller Syndrome (BDS): Lives in parent's basement despite making nearly 6 figure salaries. Addicted to WoW or FPS games. Characterized by pale skin and almost always either overweight or underweight. Argumentative and caustic when confronted online, pushover in real life. Contact with females infrequent and awkward. Generally high IQ although rampant fanboyism leads one to doubt it.
2.
Re:Does it make anyone else feel a little dirty? (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_Mo
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but my view remains the same really... Sure it seems like it might be a relatively decent publication, but:
a) It is a religious publication which includes religious sections
&
b) Is subjected to church vetting
And the Christian Science church is a group who believes in faith healing, and calls that Science.
Re:Does it make anyone else feel a little dirty? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I do actually have to agree it's a good thing when the bias and beliefs of the owners of the publication are easily known and studied. This is very favourable when compared to, say, Murdoch, who I have no idea of his beliefs and theological leanings (although I'm sure it's not that hard to discover). Even if I did find out about those things, it's not stated anywhere that his views are pushed dow
Re:Does it make anyone else feel a little dirty? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a valuable resource for stories that often won't make the mainstream press. For a news outlet it's unique in the fact that it isnt funded through advertising so outside the contempory pressures imposed on the media by big business. Thats not to say it isn't subject to other outside pressures. I often skim it for anything interesting, the religous stuff doesn't interest me but you know what there's a simple soultion don't read those articles. Even so you should be critising everything you read as news, religous dogma is the easiest stuff to spot and filter out.
If you want a true picture of the world you should be looking to as many sources as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
To be perfectly honest, no I don't think I ever have. And I'm sure they do have many fine articles, as do all sorts of other publications that have their own biases. As long as you do read with any possible biases in mind (which I always try to), I agree that good information can be gathered from a lot of sources.
However, it strikes me as odd that an organisation that doesn't believe in things like conventional medicine and certain strains of sci
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
"given the absolute goodness and perfection of God, sin, disease, and death were not created by Him, and therefore cannot be truly real."
Sorry, but given that they have to tiptoe around anything relating to those subjects because they don't believe them to be actually real... well, sorry, but
I can tell you when Slashdot will cover Survivor (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as they start building death rays [wikipedia.org] or chicken guns [wikipedia.org], that's when.
Mythbusters is science, done in a fun way. Ever watch Mr. Wizard or Bill Nye? Or Jearl Walker? That's the schtick these guys are in. Science as fun. You know, so that the next generation of kids will think science is cool and keep making/building/inventing stuff.
Science isn't just a field of study - it's also an establishment. And good PR is part of any successful establishment.
Re:The Christian Science Monitor?????? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
who knew Jamie had a degree in Russian literature (Score:2)
For most things (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)