|
|
Post by Hucklebubba on Apr 26, 2007 14:43:11 GMT -5
Adam and Jamie meet the Ask a Ninja Ninja, and in doing so, inadvertently disprove the myth that one can implode the universe by focusing a sufficient amount of geekiness on a single point. Because if this won't do it, nothing will.
|
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Apr 26, 2007 18:30:04 GMT -5
That?
Sheer AWESOME.
I often tell my wife that Mythbuster is my dream job. Usually after the episodes that involve blowing stuff up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hucklebubba on Apr 26, 2007 19:48:50 GMT -5
I often tell my wife that Mythbuster is my dream job. Ditto. By which I mean that Mythbuster is also my dream job; not that I often tell your wife that it's yours. While explosions are all well and good, I would be in it mainly for the Kari. I often wonder how Tori and Grant get anything done with her around. |
|
coccatino
Ghostbuster
whose baby are you?
Posts: 588
|
Post by coccatino on Apr 27, 2007 9:04:33 GMT -5
Hehe, after watching that, my husband said he wants Adam and Jamie to put to rest the age old Ninjas vs Pirates debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spiderdancer on Apr 27, 2007 9:50:57 GMT -5
I keep waiting for them to do the "Rule of Thumb." You know, the one everyone thinks has to do with wife-beating because they believe Boondock Saints rather than looking it up.
It's actually about carpentry.
But then, that wouldn't make for very entertaining television. "Now here is some footage of Adam and Jamie doing extensive historical research..."
|
|
|
|
Post by TheLuckyOne on Apr 29, 2007 20:26:53 GMT -5
I often tell my wife that Mythbuster is my dream job. Usually after the episodes that involve blowing stuff up. Ironically, my dream job is the Dirty Jobs guy's job. That dude's hilarious. -D |
|
|
|
Post by Hucklebubba on May 1, 2007 23:41:06 GMT -5
I would seriously like for them to bust/confirm the myth that electric cars ultimately contribute more to pollution than their gasoline brethren, but I don't see how that myth would have much entertainment value.
Unless they also tested the myth that electric cars are explode-proof.
|
|
coccatino
Ghostbuster
whose baby are you?
Posts: 588
|
Post by coccatino on May 2, 2007 11:13:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Hucklebubba on May 2, 2007 23:36:46 GMT -5
All the more reason to greenlight development of a car that can run on hitchhiker brains.
|
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on May 5, 2007 10:21:47 GMT -5
Nah, you know they'll come up with the exact same study with "hitchhiker brains" substituted for "ethanol."
I read about that a few days ago. On a computer simulation going more than a decade out, it doesn't appear to have occurred to anyone to ask how much of an increase is mathematically and statistically significant. Does a 4% nationwide increase in respitory ailments seem a bit low to anyone else, all things considered? Why not compare it to the numbers from Brazil, where the majority of cars already run on ethanol or high-ethanol mixes? And why mention the carcinogens at all in the article? By the researcher's own admission it's a zero-sum trade. The study covers smog and carcinogens, but the guy was quoted (elsewhere) claiming a much broader conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by duckie on May 5, 2007 12:56:03 GMT -5
Jacobson has also been involved in research that helped place diesel soot on the carcinogen list in California, which may be why it's also mentioned in this article. He had a well-known paper in Nature a few years back - perhaps 2001, I'm too lazy to look it up - where the carcinogenic effect of soot was discussed. Many people point to that article when talking about the negative effects of diesel soot.
As for ethanol-fueled vehicles, it is true that the oxygen in the fuel will lead to increased levels of aldehydes in the exhaust. It should be noted, however, that a catalytic converter could take care of this issue. So, I'm not so sure that the issues he discusses would be as much of a cause for alarm as he mentions.
Now, running an engine on hitchhiker's brains is a different story... after all, I would think that supply would decrease non-linearly with the amount of hitchhikers consumed, and others stopped hitchhiking...
|
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on May 5, 2007 15:50:20 GMT -5
Ah, that explains it. Though without the article mentioning his previous work on environmental carcinogens it just sounds a bit like sensationalizing.
Hitchhikers tend not to watch much TV. It'd take a while for word to get around.
|
|
|
|
Post by duckie on May 8, 2007 20:37:09 GMT -5
I just happened to know this as my PhD research covered soot emissions, and I came across some of his work when doing a lit review. Grad school... $75,000 Being able to mention it on MRFH... priceless.  |
|
|
|
Post by pfrsue on May 8, 2007 20:54:25 GMT -5
Maybe if it wasn't limited to just hitchhiker brains.... I mean, what about their livers and spleens and things?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hucklebubba on May 8, 2007 23:53:22 GMT -5
I mentioned brains because I seem to recall another thread wherein the potential of brains as an alternative fuel was discussed at great length. If I remember correctly, brains were chosen over the other internal organs because they have an exceptionally high calorific value versus the same.
Or it may have just been that the discussion was a derailment of something having to do with zombies.
Or I may have imagined the whole thing.
|
|
