Hey, you like Myth Busters, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtGf0HaW7x4

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:58:58 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Myth Busters

Who?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Myth Busters
>
> Who?

They're like Ghost Busters, but they're not real...

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.06.2012 17:58, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> Hey, you like Myth Busters, right?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtGf0HaW7x4

Seen that video before, but didn't know Myth Busters back then.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:11:52 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> Myth Busters
>>
>> Who?
> 
> They're like Ghost Busters, but they're not real...

I don't understand.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.06.2012 01:29, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:11:52 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>>>> Myth Busters
>>>
>>> Who?
>>
>> They're like Ghost Busters, but they're not real...
>
> I don't understand.

Pun.

Truth is, Mythbusters is a show where these two guys - stuntmen by 
profession - put myths, urban legends, and other stuff to the test. 
Like, say, whether it is more dangerous to get an empty beer bottle 
smacked across your head than a full one (busted). Or whether the story 
of a police officer might be true that his badge stopped a bullet 
(plausible). Or whether the ancient greeks might have employed a 
"machine crossbow" (plausible). Or whether during the US civil war one 
side had invented a steam-driven machine cannon (busted). Or whether the 
Irish might have employed leather cannons with success (busted). Or 
whether That Famous Incredible Youtube Video(TM) might actually be real 
(typically busted). Or whether it is possible to explode a propane tank 
by shooting at it. Or whether it is possible to ignite gasoline with a 
cigarette / match / whatever. Or... well, name just about anything that 
sounds weird (but might be plausible) or is taken for granted (but might 
be a myth) and can be put to the test by (preferably destructive) 
experiment.

Just look for "Mythbusters" on Youtube.

That 1000-tube paintball gun is absolutely their style.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 04:41:46 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Pun.
> 
> Truth is, Mythbusters is a show where these two guys - stuntmen by
> profession - put myths, urban legends, and other stuff to the test.
> Like, say, whether it is more dangerous to get an empty beer bottle
> smacked across your head than a full one (busted). Or whether the story
> of a police officer might be true that his badge stopped a bullet
> (plausible). Or whether the ancient greeks might have employed a
> "machine crossbow" (plausible). Or whether during the US civil war one
> side had invented a steam-driven machine cannon (busted). Or whether the
> Irish might have employed leather cannons with success (busted). Or
> whether That Famous Incredible Youtube Video(TM) might actually be real
> (typically busted). Or whether it is possible to explode a propane tank
> by shooting at it. Or whether it is possible to ignite gasoline with a
> cigarette / match / whatever. Or... well, name just about anything that
> sounds weird (but might be plausible) or is taken for granted (but might
> be a myth) and can be put to the test by (preferably destructive)
> experiment.
> 
> Just look for "Mythbusters" on Youtube.
> 
> That 1000-tube paintball gun is absolutely their style.

I had hoped that most here would recognise that I was pulling Andy's leg, 
with a completely deadpan delivery.

The absurdity of not having heard of Mythbusters ranks up there with 
someone who works in the technology business not knowing what Wired 
magazine is or what an RSS feed is or how it might be beneficial.

The actual truth is that of *course* I know who the Mythbusters are.  
I've seen them in one of their live touring shows, and have been a fan 
for *years*.

My favourite explosion?  The cement mixer, naturally.  Wish the sound had 
been captured better.

So I was just tweaking Andy's nose. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> My favourite explosion?  The cement mixer, naturally.  Wish the sound had 
> been captured better.

  At one point the executives deliberately wanted them to make more
explosions, so there was at least one explosion in every single episode.
They have toned it down a bit lately, but it's still pretty common. I wish
they stopped that (ie. artificially selecting "myths" that somehow involve
explosions, no matter how indirectly and contrived). It gets old pretty
quick.

  Another thing I wish they'd do is for the side trio to stop freaking
screaming all the time when anything happens. Just shut up, please.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 6/24/2012 8:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> The absurdity of not having heard of Mythbusters ranks up there with
> someone who works in the technology business not knowing what Wired
> magazine is or what an RSS feed is or how it might be beneficial.
>

Don't know. Wired went a bit south for a while, and I cancelled my 
subscription. Had I never had one, I probably would be going, "Never 
heard of them, but have you seen the one called Make:?" Yeah, haven't 
read Wired in years...

Post a reply to this message

On 25/06/2012 07:40 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 6/24/2012 8:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The absurdity of not having heard of Mythbusters ranks up there with
>> someone who works in the technology business not knowing what Wired
>> magazine is or what an RSS feed is or how it might be beneficial.
>>
>
> Don't know. Wired went a bit south for a while, and I cancelled my
> subscription. Had I never had one, I probably would be going, "Never
> heard of them, but have you seen the one called Make:?" Yeah, haven't
> read Wired in years...

OK, now I'm relieved...

Post a reply to this message

On 25/06/2012 06:39 AM, Warp wrote:

>    At one point the executives deliberately wanted them to make more
> explosions, so there was at least one explosion in every single episode.
> They have toned it down a bit lately, but it's still pretty common. I wish
> they stopped that (ie. artificially selecting "myths" that somehow involve
> explosions, no matter how indirectly and contrived). It gets old pretty
> quick.
>
>    Another thing I wish they'd do is for the side trio to stop freaking
> screaming all the time when anything happens. Just shut up, please.

Yeah, some of the stuff they do does seem a bit OTT. Personally I'd 
prefer a bit more science and a bit less silliness. But hey, what the 
hell do *I* know about TV ratings? :-P

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 01:39:26 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> My favourite explosion?  The cement mixer, naturally.  Wish the sound
>> had been captured better.
> 
>   At one point the executives deliberately wanted them to make more
> explosions, so there was at least one explosion in every single episode.
> They have toned it down a bit lately, but it's still pretty common. I
> wish they stopped that (ie. artificially selecting "myths" that somehow
> involve explosions, no matter how indirectly and contrived). It gets old
> pretty quick.

I always enjoy seeing them take something that's big and creatively make 
it into lots of smaller things.  I particularly liked the episodes with 
the rocket sled, because that was far more creative than just "let's get 
a bunch of anpho and make a big boom".

The ones that I haven't liked are ones like the recent "square wheels" 
episode - like what the actual f-ing f?

>   Another thing I wish they'd do is for the side trio to stop freaking
> screaming all the time when anything happens. Just shut up, please.

I like seeing genuine enthusiasm.  Nothing wrong with people enjoying the 
work they do.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 23:40:15 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 6/24/2012 8:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The absurdity of not having heard of Mythbusters ranks up there with
>> someone who works in the technology business not knowing what Wired
>> magazine is or what an RSS feed is or how it might be beneficial.
>>
>>
> Don't know. Wired went a bit south for a while, and I cancelled my
> subscription. Had I never had one, I probably would be going, "Never
> heard of them, but have you seen the one called Make:?" Yeah, haven't
> read Wired in years...

I had a subscription that I didn't ask for for Wired, actually.  I had 
subscribed to "Maximum Linux" and when the magazine was canceled, instead 
of refunding the undelivered portion of the subscription or providing the 
inconvenienced subscribers with a choice, they just automatically decided 
that filling with any subscription would be fine, so why not Wired?

It was OK.  Not great, but it was OK.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25/06/2012 7:55 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>    Another thing I wish they'd do is for the side trio to stop freaking
>> >  screaming all the time when anything happens. Just shut up, please.
> I like seeing genuine enthusiasm.  Nothing wrong with people enjoying the
> work they do.

True, there's not but they sound like they are auditioning for an Oprah 
audience.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 20:07:56 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 25/06/2012 7:55 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>    Another thing I wish they'd do is for the side trio to stop
>>>    freaking
>>> >  screaming all the time when anything happens. Just shut up, please.
>> I like seeing genuine enthusiasm.  Nothing wrong with people enjoying
>> the work they do.
> 
> True, there's not but they sound like they are auditioning for an Oprah
> audience.

Never watched Oprah, so I wouldn't know what that sounds like. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25/06/2012 8:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> True, there's not but they sound like they are auditioning for an Oprah
>> >  audience.
> Never watched Oprah, so I wouldn't know what that sounds like.;)

That was me trying to speak American, and use a cultural reference.
Let’s just say they sound false to my ears, worse than canned laughter.
Twats!
Damn! I missed ISIHAC. :-(


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 20:57:47 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 25/06/2012 8:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> True, there's not but they sound like they are auditioning for an
>>> Oprah
>>> >  audience.
>> Never watched Oprah, so I wouldn't know what that sounds like.;)
> 
> That was me trying to speak American, and use a cultural reference.

That's what you get, then. ;)

> Let’s just say they sound false to my ears, worse than canned laughter.

It sounds pretty genuine to me.

> Twats!
> Damn! I missed ISIHAC. :-(

Time to grab the ep from the BBC site. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25/06/2012 9:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 20:57:47 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> That was me trying to speak American, and use a cultural reference.
>
> That's what you get, then. ;)
>

To be expected. :-P

>> Let’s just say they sound false to my ears, worse than canned laughter.
>
> It sounds pretty genuine to me.
>

Must be a cultural and/or age thing. Falser than Audrey Hepburn’s bra.

>> Damn! I missed ISIHAC. :-(
>
> Time to grab the ep from the BBC site. :)
>

Get iPlayer cannot find it ATM but I have 7 days to listen.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> >> Let’s just say they sound false to my ears, worse than canned laughter.
> >
> > It sounds pretty genuine to me.
> >

> Must be a cultural and/or age thing. Falser than Audrey Hepburn’s bra.

  Genuine canned laughter. What more can you wish for?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 26/06/2012 10:02 AM, Warp wrote:
>   Genuine canned laughter. What more can you wish for?

Studio laughter.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.06.2012 11:23, schrieb Stephen:
> On 26/06/2012 10:02 AM, Warp wrote:
>> Genuine canned laughter. What more can you wish for?
>
> Studio laughter.
>

Genuine canned studio laughter.

Post a reply to this message

On 26/06/2012 10:29 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.06.2012 11:23, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 26/06/2012 10:02 AM, Warp wrote:
>>> Genuine canned laughter. What more can you wish for?
>>
>> Studio laughter.
>>
>
> Genuine canned studio laughter.

Live studio laughter.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 26/06/2012 10:29 AM, clipka wrote:
> > Am 26.06.2012 11:23, schrieb Stephen:
> >> On 26/06/2012 10:02 AM, Warp wrote:
> >>> Genuine canned laughter. What more can you wish for?
> >>
> >> Studio laughter.
> >>
> >
> > Genuine canned studio laughter.

> Live studio laughter.

Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRgRaxiTBaU

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 26/06/2012 11:12 AM, Warp wrote:
> Reminds me of this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRgRaxiTBaU

Which in turn reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9O6pCYyelA

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:51:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> Let’s just say they sound false to my ears, worse than canned
>>> laughter.
>>
>> It sounds pretty genuine to me.
>>
>>
> Must be a cultural and/or age thing. Falser than Audrey Hepburn’s bra.

Doesn't seem like it to me most of the time.  <shrug>

>>> Damn! I missed ISIHAC. :-(
>>
>> Time to grab the ep from the BBC site. :)
>>
>>
> Get iPlayer cannot find it ATM but I have 7 days to listen.

get_iplayer worked for me.  The number was 11182.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 26/06/2012 6:22 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:51:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>> Must be a cultural and/or age thing. Falser than Audrey Hepburn’s bra.
>
> Doesn't seem like it to me most of the time.<shrug>

That is why I said it is probably a cultural and/or age thing.
It sounds so: "I have got to ooh and ah" o_O"

>
>
> get_iplayer worked for me.  The number was 11182.
>

Got it now. :-D
It seems to take ages to update. :-(


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:24:58 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 26/06/2012 6:22 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:51:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> 
>>> Must be a cultural and/or age thing. Falser than Audrey Hepburn’s bra.
>>
>> Doesn't seem like it to me most of the time.<shrug>
> 
> That is why I said it is probably a cultural and/or age thing.
> It sounds so: "I have got to ooh and ah" o_O"

Thinking about it, I wonder if perhaps they loop the reactions in some 
cases.

>>
>> get_iplayer worked for me.  The number was 11182.
>>
>>
> Got it now. :-D It seems to take ages to update. :-(

We listened last night - Jeremy was in particularly scintillating form. :)

But we wondered where Graeme was.  We were so looking forward to hearing 
some Hamish & Dougal.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 6/25/2012 11:56 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 23:40:15 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> On 6/24/2012 8:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> The absurdity of not having heard of Mythbusters ranks up there with
>>> someone who works in the technology business not knowing what Wired
>>> magazine is or what an RSS feed is or how it might be beneficial.
>>>
>>>
>> Don't know. Wired went a bit south for a while, and I cancelled my
>> subscription. Had I never had one, I probably would be going, "Never
>> heard of them, but have you seen the one called Make:?" Yeah, haven't
>> read Wired in years...
>
> I had a subscription that I didn't ask for for Wired, actually.  I had
> subscribed to "Maximum Linux" and when the magazine was canceled, instead
> of refunding the undelivered portion of the subscription or providing the
> inconvenienced subscribers with a choice, they just automatically decided
> that filling with any subscription would be fine, so why not Wired?
>
> It was OK.  Not great, but it was OK.
>
> Jim
It was actually pretty good, for the first year or so. Tended to be 
edgy, didn't necessarily pull punches. Tried to actually tell you what 
the next up an coming tech was. Had articles by actually interesting 
people. Then... it started to become more and more like a version of PC 
Magazine, with slightly better paper. I.e., all corporatized, shallow, 
low information, talking about the latest thing from their advertisers, 
etc. The shift really pissed a lot of people off, but, sort of like half 
the "science" channels on TV today, when the morons outnumber the smart 
people 10:1, you can afford to lose 50% of the people that actually care 
if the information is at all useful, or interesting, or even 
not-gibberish, while gaining 4-5 from the clueless masses, in the 
process of dumbing it all down.

Post a reply to this message

I managed to find the time to listen to it tonight.

On 26/06/2012 7:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> We listened last night - Jeremy was in particularly scintillating form.:)
>

That was Jeremy? I thought it was Bob Dillon. ;-)

I really liked Uptown Top Ranking to the tune of Scotland the brave. :-)


> But we wondered where Graeme was.  We were so looking forward to hearing
> some Hamish&  Dougal.

He'll be having his tea.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:03:26 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 26/06/2012 7:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> We listened last night - Jeremy was in particularly scintillating
>> form.:)
>>
>>
> That was Jeremy? I thought it was Bob Dillon. ;-)

LOL

> I really liked Uptown Top Ranking to the tune of Scotland the brave. :-)

Yes, that was a good one. :)

>> But we wondered where Graeme was.  We were so looking forward to
>> hearing some Hamish&  Dougal.
> 
> He'll be having his tea

LOL - that's a good one.  I take it you've heard the Hamish & Dougal 
series?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 29/06/2012 11:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> LOL - that's a good one.  I take it you've heard the Hamish&  Dougal
> series?

Yes, I have recordings. :-D

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 08:48:04 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 29/06/2012 11:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> LOL - that's a good one.  I take it you've heard the Hamish&  Dougal
>> series?
> 
> Yes, I have recordings. :-D

Somehow I'm not surprised. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 30/06/2012 8:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 08:48:04 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>
>> Yes, I have recordings. :-D
>
> Somehow I'm not surprised. :)


Think of Mrs Naughtie performing her Dance of the Seven Voles. :-D


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message