"Ba r r y" wrote in message
...
Has anyone else seen then new Grizz band saw in the 2006 Mythbusters?


what's Mythbusters? A TV show? A book? A magazine?

Never heard of it.

"BillyBob" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Ba r r y" wrote in message
...
Has anyone else seen then new Grizz band saw in the 2006 Mythbusters?


what's Mythbusters? A TV show? A book? A magazine?

Never heard of it.


whaaa???

Mythbusters is a TV show.

A very good one. (though their "science" is a bit suspect from time to
time...)

"BillyBob" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Ba r r y" wrote in message
...
Has anyone else seen then new Grizz band saw in the 2006 Mythbusters?


what's Mythbusters? A TV show? A book? A magazine?

Never heard of it.


It is a show on Discover channel.

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/my...thbusters.html

It is fun, backyard science as imagined by two hollywood special effects
guys.

It ain't hard science. But it does addres many popular myths in a hollywood
sort of way.

It always amazes me how many people will talk about a TV show and, when you
tell them you have no idea what it is, will express disbelief or think you
are "out of touch". Surprising as it might seem, there are still some of us
that are not addicted to the electronic time waster.

"Locutus" wrote in message
...

"BillyBob" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Ba r r y" wrote in message
...
Has anyone else seen then new Grizz band saw in the 2006 Mythbusters?


what's Mythbusters? A TV show? A book? A magazine?

Never heard of it.


whaaa???

Mythbusters is a TV show.

A very good one. (though their "science" is a bit suspect from time to
time...)

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 04:42:35 GMT, "CW" wrote:

"Locutus" wrote in message
...

Mythbusters is a TV show.

A very good one. (though their "science" is a bit suspect from time to
time...)

It always amazes me how many people will talk about a TV show and, when you
tell them you have no idea what it is, will express disbelief or think you
are "out of touch". Surprising as it might seem, there are still some of us
that are not addicted to the electronic time waster.

Unfortunately if you are sufficiently geeky to know about usenet and
like to build things you have no excuse not to know about Mythbusters.
It's a fact.

I'm still kinda peeved they can't grasp the concept of wood grain in
the splitting an arrow myth though.


-Leuf

CW wrote:
It always amazes me how many people will talk about a TV show and, when you
tell them you have no idea what it is, will express disbelief or think you
are "out of touch". Surprising as it might seem, there are still some of us
that are not addicted to the electronic time waster.

Um. What's a TV show?

er
--
email not valid

Leuf wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 04:42:35 GMT, "CW" wrote:


"Locutus" wrote in message
...

Mythbusters is a TV show.

A very good one. (though their "science" is a bit suspect from time to
time...)


It always amazes me how many people will talk about a TV show and, when you
tell them you have no idea what it is, will express disbelief or think you
are "out of touch". Surprising as it might seem, there are still some of us
that are not addicted to the electronic time waster.


Unfortunately if you are sufficiently geeky to know about usenet and
like to build things you have no excuse not to know about Mythbusters.
It's a fact.

I'm still kinda peeved they can't grasp the concept of wood grain in
the splitting an arrow myth though.

Or the ability to train soldiers to use a mirror.

er
--
email not valid

"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
...

"BillyBob" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Ba r r y" wrote in message
...
Has anyone else seen then new Grizz band saw in the 2006 Mythbusters?


what's Mythbusters? A TV show? A book? A magazine?

Never heard of it.


It is a show on Discover channel.

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/my...thbusters.html

It is fun, backyard science as imagined by two hollywood special effects
guys.

It ain't hard science. But it does addres many popular myths in a
hollywood
sort of way.

Thanks for the factual, complete reply. I don't have cable, so I've never
seen it.

Bob

"BillyBob" wrote in message
news:LF8Tf.6431$


Thanks for the factual, complete reply. I don't have cable, so I've never
seen it.

Bob

Cable, or Satellite TV or any of the other premium programming providers.

"CW" wrote in message
nk.net...
It always amazes me how many people will talk about a TV show and, when
you
tell them you have no idea what it is, will express disbelief or think you
are "out of touch". Surprising as it might seem, there are still some of
us
that are not addicted to the electronic time waster.


As someone else pointed out, if you can find the usenet and you like to
build things, I am not sure how you never heard of Mythbusters.

Ba r r y wrote:

On Sun, 1Ader 2006 04:42:35 GMT, "CW" wrote:

It always amazes me how many people will talk about a TV show and, when
you tell them you have no idea what it is, will express disbelief or think
you are "out of touch". Surprising as it might seem, there are still some
of us that are not addicted to the electronic time waster.

I actually HATE TV, but that's what TiVo is for!

Cramming 2 hours of what you REALLY want to watch into an hour or so
at bed time. When you doze off, it's easy to pick it up again later.

No BS, no commercials, what you want, when you want it. TiVo makes TV
watchable.

Certain shows can actually have some value. I actually get a great
kick out from some of the problem solving trains of thought on
Mythbusters, as well as Carrie's butt. G

don't we all! and watching Adam hurt himself is amusing too
--
if corn oil comes from corn,
and olive oil comes from olives
where dose baby oil come from?

In article et,
CW wrote:
It always amazes me how many people will talk about a TV show and, when you
tell them you have no idea what it is, will express disbelief or think you
are "out of touch". Surprising as it might seem, there are still some of us
that are not addicted to the electronic time waster.


"Television is a medium.
Proof:
It is not rare.
It is not well done."

In article ,
Locutus wrote:

"BillyBob" wrote in message
link.net...

"Ba r r y" wrote in message
...
Has anyone else seen then new Grizz band saw in the 2006 Mythbusters?


what's Mythbusters? A TV show? A book? A magazine?

Never heard of it.


whaaa???

Mythbusters is a TV show.

A very good one. (though their "science" is a bit suspect from time to
time...)



Rumor mill hath it that the thience on the thhow ith thomewhat 'hit or myth'.


Oh thit. my lithp is thowing.

Leuf wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 04:42:35 GMT, "CW" wrote:

"Locutus" wrote in message
...

Mythbusters is a TV show.

A very good one. (though their "science" is a bit suspect from time to
time...)

It always amazes me how many people will talk about a TV show and, when you
tell them you have no idea what it is, will express disbelief or think you
are "out of touch". Surprising as it might seem, there are still some of us
that are not addicted to the electronic time waster.

Yes, I agree. I watch almost no television other than the occasional
sporting event. I was out with some folks last night that brought up
half a dozen shows with which I was completely unfamiliar. Based on
the content of the discussion, though, it didn't appear that I was
depriving myself of much. YMMV.

When I was younger (than I am now at 35) I watched a lot of tube. Now
I prefer to live, rather than live vicariously.

JP
***************************
From atop the soapbox.

On 2006/3/19 12:49 AM, "Leuf" wrote:

Unfortunately if you are sufficiently geeky to know about usenet and
like to build things you have no excuse not to know about Mythbusters.

I'm a certified geek and have been a denizen of Usenet for about thirty
years, and I am a serious amateur woodworker - but I know nothing about this
Mythbusters program.

I gather that it is a humorous attempt to dispel urban rumors. DO they
actually use any hard science or do they just do backyard experiments that
involve blowing things up? In other words, have they advanced beyond beign
adolescents with a home chemistry set?

It's a fact.

If this is what you think of as a fact, I have my answer about the show.

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:43:49 -0500, Robert Haar
wrote:

On 2006/3/19 12:49 AM, "Leuf" wrote:

Unfortunately if you are sufficiently geeky to know about usenet and
like to build things you have no excuse not to know about Mythbusters.

I'm a certified geek and have been a denizen of Usenet for about thirty
years, and I am a serious amateur woodworker - but I know nothing about this
Mythbusters program.

I gather that it is a humorous attempt to dispel urban rumors. DO they
actually use any hard science or do they just do backyard experiments that
involve blowing things up? In other words, have they advanced beyond beign
adolescents with a home chemistry set?

They are somewhere in between. First they try to prove/disprove the
myth as stated. If the myth proves false they then take progressively
larger liberties trying to make the spirit of the myth occur. For
example, in the last episode they tested whether a raft filled with
helium could lift a person off the ground. Well it's not much fun to
fill a raft with helium and have it do the obvious. So the next step
is to figure out how huge a raft would have to be to actually do it
and then build it. They are Hollywood effects guys so they are real
good at finding practical solutions for physical tests. They are less
good about things like getting enough data to have statistical
relevance.

This quote from a recent online chat they had pretty much covers it:

"Unfortunately, in the interests of the time constraints put on us by
American television, some things end up on the cutting room floor. And
it has always ticked Jamie off a little bit that the show seems to
favor me falling on my ass over him explaining some esoteric concept."

I think the best part is they show their mistakes, and for the most
part they'll admit to them, and if necessary come back and revisit the
myth in a later show to get it right. Still waiting for an admission
of royally screwing up that arrow myth though.

It's a fact.

If this is what you think of as a fact, I have my answer about the show.

It's a fact that neither of you have any excuse. You may want to
check the expiration date on your geek certificate. The two of you
aren't a statistically large enough sample to disprove me.


-Leuf

Robert still qualifies as Geek. Arguably an Out of Date Geek, perhaps,
but a geek who's not current on kinda geeky tv shows is still a geek.
One could even claim that although the audience for Mythbusters is
heavily geek, that's not their intended audience.

If Robert had said he didn't know about Robot Wars or Battlebots, now
that WOULD be grounds for a geek tribunal.

"Robert Haar" wrote

I gather that it is a humorous attempt to dispel urban rumors. DO they
actually use any hard science or do they just do backyard experiments that
involve blowing things up? In other words, have they advanced beyond beign
adolescents with a home chemistry set?


First and formost, it is a TV show. As such, they have both time and
budgetary constraints. But as special effects guys, they can be wildly
creative within those constraints. Added to this is that they are kinda
funny guys. Add a demented support staff, including at least one totally hot
babe, it can get humorous at times.

On 3/19/2006 4:43 PM Robert Haar mumbled something about the following:
On 2006/3/19 12:49 AM, "Leuf" wrote:

Unfortunately if you are sufficiently geeky to know about usenet and
like to build things you have no excuse not to know about Mythbusters.

I'm a certified geek and have been a denizen of Usenet for about thirty
years, and I am a serious amateur woodworker - but I know nothing about this
Mythbusters program.

I gather that it is a humorous attempt to dispel urban rumors. DO they
actually use any hard science or do they just do backyard experiments that
involve blowing things up? In other words, have they advanced beyond beign
adolescents with a home chemistry set?

It's a fact.

If this is what you think of as a fact, I have my answer about the show.




You start out saying you know nothing about the show, then you ask if
they've advanced beyond adolescents, then you say you have your answer
about the show. Obviously, you know SOMETHING about the show, but wish
to remain ignorant about it while condemning it.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

"But a real geek still would have looked it up rather than waiting for
a response. G "

Damn. Curse you and your use of logic! I am foiled.

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Locutus wrote:

"BillyBob" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Ba r r y" wrote in message
...
Has anyone else seen then new Grizz band saw in the 2006 Mythbusters?


what's Mythbusters? A TV show? A book? A magazine?

Never heard of it.


whaaa???

Mythbusters is a TV show.

A very good one. (though their "science" is a bit suspect from time to
time...)



Rumor mill hath it that the thience on the thhow ith thomewhat 'hit or
myth'.


Oh thit. my lithp is thowing.



?????? Ok......

Lee Michaels wrote:
"Robert Haar" wrote

I gather that it is a humorous attempt to dispel urban rumors. DO they
actually use any hard science or do they just do backyard experiments that
involve blowing things up? In other words, have they advanced beyond beign
adolescents with a home chemistry set?


First and formost, it is a TV show. As such, they have both time and
budgetary constraints. But as special effects guys, they can be wildly
creative within those constraints. Added to this is that they are kinda
funny guys. Add a demented support staff, including at least one totally hot
babe, it can get humorous at times.

Please post pics.
JP

Ba r r y wrote:
On 19 Mar 2006 16:03:03 -0800, "
wrote:



If Robert had said he didn't know about Robot Wars or Battlebots, now
that WOULD be grounds for a geek tribunal.


But a real geek still would have looked it up rather than waiting for
a response. G

[tongue in cheek]

No. On the contrary, a real geek won't pass up the opportunity to point
out and circumscribe logical deficiencies in another's assertion.



er
--
email not valid

The entity posted thusly:

If Robert had said he didn't know about Robot Wars or Battlebots, now
that WOULD be grounds for a geek tribunal.

A real geek knows the difference between a robot and a
radio-controlled vehicle, and looks down his nose at the latter,
refusing to waste time on it.

Oleg Lego wrote:

A real geek knows the difference between a robot and a
radio-controlled vehicle, and looks down his nose at the latter,
refusing to waste time on it.


As a former avid r/c'er, not a robotics guy, I used to look down at them
for the same reasons. G

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:28:24 -0500, Leuf
wrote:

They are somewhere in between. First they try to prove/disprove the
myth as stated. If the myth proves false they then take progressively
larger liberties trying to make the spirit of the myth occur. For
example, in the last episode they tested whether a raft filled with
helium could lift a person off the ground. Well it's not much fun to
fill a raft with helium and have it do the obvious. So the next step
is to figure out how huge a raft would have to be to actually do it
and then build it. They are Hollywood effects guys so they are real
good at finding practical solutions for physical tests. They are less
good about things like getting enough data to have statistical
relevance.

No, first they proved that the myth was false, they filled a raft with
helium and it couldn't even lift it's own weight. So they tried a
variety of rafts with the same results. Myth busted. Then they try
to replicate the spirit of the myth if they can. Whether or not they
can replicate the spirit of the myth, it was busted the minute the
raft failed to float.

Jay Pique wrote:
Lee Michaels wrote:
"Robert Haar" wrote

I gather that it is a humorous attempt to dispel urban rumors. DO they
actually use any hard science or do they just do backyard experiments that
involve blowing things up? In other words, have they advanced beyond beign
adolescents with a home chemistry set?


First and formost, it is a TV show. As such, they have both time and
budgetary constraints. But as special effects guys, they can be wildly
creative within those constraints. Added to this is that they are kinda
funny guys. Add a demented support staff, including at least one totally hot
babe, it can get humorous at times.

Please post pics.

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/my...t/meet_03.html

what's Mythbusters? A TV show? A book? A magazine?

Never heard of it.


It is a show on Discover channel.

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/my...thbusters.html

It is fun, backyard science as imagined by two hollywood special effects
guys.

It ain't hard science. But it does addres many popular myths in a
hollywood
sort of way.

Thanks for the factual, complete reply. I don't have cable, so I've never
seen it.

How old ARE you guys? ;-)

BillyBob wrote:
"Ba r r y" wrote in message
...

Has anyone else seen then new Grizz band saw in the 2006 Mythbusters?



what's Mythbusters? A TV show? A book? A magazine?

Never heard of it.



Yes TV show. Pretty good. You can see some of their shows on the
internet as well.

--
Thank you,



"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16