Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Censorship Media Security Television

Adam Savage Revises Claim of Lawyer-Bullying On RFID Show 301

Posted by timothy
from the but-that's-what-they-want-him-to-say dept.
Nick writes "A few weeks ago a video of a talk given by Adam Savage of the television show MythBusters spread across the internet (including a mention on Slashdot.) On the video, Savage stated that the show was unable to produce an episode about previously known RFID vulnerabilities due to a conference call to Texas Instruments that unexpectedly included several credit card companies' legal counsel. TI (via a spokesperson talking with cnet.com) stated that only one lawyer was on the call and that the majority of the people on the call were product managers from the Smart Card Alliance (SCA) invited by TI to speak. Then Savage (via a Discovery Communications statement) reaffirmed that he was not on the call himself and that the decision was not made by Discovery or their advertising sales department but rather MythBuster's production company, Beyond Productions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adam Savage Revises Claim of Lawyer-Bullying On RFID Show

Comments Filter:
  • so (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thermian (1267986) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @02:47PM (#24878741)

    Ok, so they told him to revise his story to make them seem nicer or get the boot?

    Methinks this is likely.

    • Re:so (Score:5, Informative)

      by Ogive17 (691899) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @02:50PM (#24878809)
      Boot him where? Without Adam Savage "Mythbusters" loses quite a bit of its' luster. I would be willing to bet "Mythbusters" is one of Discovery Channel's more popular shows.
      • Re:so (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BobMcD (601576) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @03:01PM (#24879007)

        Boot him where? Without Adam Savage "Mythbusters" loses quite a bit of its' luster. I would be willing to bet "Mythbusters" is one of Discovery Channel's more popular shows.

        True, but not so popular that they wouldn't just kill it and run re-runs while they scrambled for a replacement.

        When the entire network is at stake, NO ONE is THAT irreplaceable.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jayhawk88 (160512)

          When the entire network is at stake, NO ONE is THAT irreplaceable.

          Good point. Can you imagine what the Discovery suits did when AmEx, Visa, Discover, etc said to them "Well if you think our cards are so insecure, perhaps we should just pull our credit card processing from your web and retail stores". Probably it never came to this exactly but I'm sure the message was clear: You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by bigstrat2003 (1058574) *

            "Well if you think our cards are so insecure, perhaps we should just pull our credit card processing from your web and retail stores".

            Wouldn't Discovery have an excellent basis for a lawsuit here? I imagine that pulling someone's merchant account just because you don't like what they said wouldn't be allowed, but then again, IANAL.

            • Re:so (Score:4, Funny)

              by SuiteSisterMary (123932) <<slebrun> <at> <gmail.com>> on Thursday September 04, 2008 @03:20PM (#24879229) Journal

              Actually, I'd say those merchant accounts improve the standing of the CC companies.

              "The ToS you signed clearly says you won't try to circumvent the security features on the Credit Card systems we let you use, and you're making a FREAKING TELEVISION SHOW about it?"

            • It's totally allowed, unfortunately. Media companies have been dealing with this crap for centuries. Its why there is usually a degree of separation between the content producers, and the advertising people, something I guess Discovery doesn't have.

            • I don't think pulling the merchant account is even an issue. It's more along the lines of 'We pay for advertising. We don't have to. Don't fuck with us'

            • Re:so (Score:4, Insightful)

              by moxley (895517) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @04:04PM (#24879917)

              It's not like they would say:

              "Oh, wel pulled your merchant account because we didn't like what you said."

              No, that isn't how it works. Standard practice is to pick some other reason or infraction (of which there will be many, which 99% of the time would be overlooked or not mentioned).

              Believe me, they have more than one way of dropping somebody for a reason which will provide no recourse.

          • by Turken (139591)

            Does Discovery even have any retail stores left open? I though they closed them all last year. Not that I really care since they spent the last few years shifting their product selection towards becoming just another brookstone/sharper-image clone anyway.

          • Re:so (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Spy der Mann (805235) <spydermann.slashdot@NOspam.gmail.com> on Thursday September 04, 2008 @04:13PM (#24880025) Homepage Journal

            Probably it never came to this exactly but I'm sure the message was clear: You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

            Nope. You bite the OTHER hand.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by LWATCDR (28044)

            Not bloody likely ore even smart, they would never pull the merchant accounts.
            What they would do is pull their advertising. Totally legal plus far more effective.
            They would also threaten to sue for any "damages" that the show caused since they are teaching people how to break the cards.
            So they could do a show that ticks off their customers BTW you the viewer are not their customer, you are their product. Or run a show that a few people will like. Not doing the show is just good business.
            Oh and not watching

        • by elrous0 (869638) *
          Maybe they could get the poor bastards who took over The Man Show after Adam Corolla and Jimmy Kimmel got the boot. They're the Coy and Vance of cable television.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by s1lhouette (1319369)

        compared to dirty jobs, tougher in Alaska, ice road truckers, ax men, and deadliest catch, Mythbusters is a show for the gods.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Trespass (225077)

          compared to dirty jobs, tougher in Alaska, ice road truckers, ax men, and deadliest catch, Mythbusters is a show for the gods.

          Compared to being shot or stabbed, a toothache feels great as well.

        • Re:so (Score:4, Insightful)

          by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday September 04, 2008 @03:50PM (#24879699)
          Hey, Deadliest Catch was a great show in its first season. But then Alaska changed the fishing rules and went to a quota system instead of a "grab what you can until we sound the horn" system. From the second season onward it got pretty boring. I don't even know why they still do the "crab count" thing. After the first season, it's meaningless.
          • Re:so (Score:5, Informative)

            by Mike Buddha (10734) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @06:57PM (#24882021)

            Only if you don't understand how the quota system works. Once you fill your quota, you can lease quota from less successful fishing boats. That's why they do the crab count. It's not a mad dash like it was in the first season but it's still a race. Once the quotas are leased to another vessel they're theirs to harvest, but it's not as cut and dried as you think. In fact I believe one of the vessels was doing so poorly this year they ended up leasing their quota out and cutting their season short this last season.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by VeNoM0619 (1058216)
        Tell him to go on "Penn and Tellers' Bullshit" where they bring to light all types of issues. For anyone who loves Mythbusters, I also recommend that show.

        In fact, I hope that would be their next episode (or possibly already is, since I'm only halfway through season 2)
        • by flitty (981864)
          So, it's a chain of command issue they have with Adam's description of the issue?

          CC Company: Discovery channel, you can't show this show.
          Discovery Channel: You're right. Mythbuster's guys, you can't show this, or else we pull the plug.
          Mythbusters: Um. Ok.
          Instead of....
          CC Company: Discovery Channel, you can't show this show.
          Discovery Channel: Um. Ok.
        • Please. I watched an episode the other day about world peace, where they stipulated that world peace is driven by money. If it was satire, then the delivery wasn't very good. If it wasn't, then it's just bullshit.

          The show is entertaining, but I walked away from it without a single useful fact.

          Oh well, I won't threadjack, but this whole incident does sound like bullshit too. There's only a few months till Shmoocon, and I wonder if CC RFID is going to be a topic...

      • Re:so (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jellomizer (103300) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @03:17PM (#24879211)

        Any replacement just wouldn't work well. There is a particular chemistry between Adam and Jamie (in a non gay way) that makes the show interesting. Jamie alone would just be to intimating of a character, too overbearing. Just as Adam alone the show would be to chaotic and wild. Both together really help moderate both. Taking Jamie's edge off, and actually making Adam seem like he knows what he is doing.
        While the 3 stooges Karie, Grant and Tory, can probably pull it off but they are not really known for the big builds.

        • Re:so (Score:5, Funny)

          by cthulu_mt (1124113) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @03:25PM (#24879317)
          I'm imagining Karie pulling it off.

          I'll be in my bunk if anyone needs me.
        • Re:so (Score:4, Informative)

          by blair1q (305137) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @04:40PM (#24880411) Journal

          They won't can Adam. Where would they find someone who's simultaneously so devious and so ignorant of scientific fact?

          They tried to un-stupid the show a little when they brought in Grant, who actually seems to have passed a science class at some time in his past, but even he seems to have lost the ability to keep them from walking straight into unphysical presumptions.

          All that production budget and they can't spend a few minutes a week phoning a real scientist to ask if their ideas to prove/disprove the myths aren't just more myths? They only seem to spend on "explosives experts", but that's their insurance company talking. I guess the insurance company cares if someone gets blown up, but not if someone gets stupider thinking it's being made smarter.

          Still. The show is too much fun to stop watching.

          • Re:so (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ildon (413912) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @04:57PM (#24880639)

            Watch the first couple seasons. They do call people and have people do research (and often times do a lot of math on their own beforehand). The problem is that A) doing match and research is boring for television and B) it pretty much gives away the ending before they've even built anything.

            A lot of times they already know for an absolute fact what is going to happen, either because it's blatantly obvious to anyone with a minimal physics background (i.e. they paid attention in high school) or because it actually did happen to a real person with witnesses. But the fun part of the show is them building shit and blowing shit up, and the "reveal" of the result near the end of the segment.

            The show is cut the way it is because if it weren't it wouldn't be nearly as interesting or fun. I honestly believe the show would not have been nearly as successful if it was just them doing research and math and the audience knowing the result way ahead of time before they even built anything.

            A successful show that gets people INTERESTED in science or at least questioning the world around them is better than a show that has real "hard" science/research/math and gets canceled in one season.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Atario (673917)

          Agreed, in spades. That balance is hard to get right, judging by how other attempts have fared. If you ever had a chance to check out Patent Bending [wikipedia.org] , you can see a perfect example of the same idea gone wrong.

          The premise of the show is actually pretty promising: dig up old patents that never went anywhere and attempt to build them for real, to see if the ideas work. Then try to improve on them, if possible.

          The problem is that the "grounded guy" is a milquetoast whose building instincts aren't quite the

      • Re:so (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Minwee (522556) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Thursday September 04, 2008 @03:20PM (#24879243) Homepage

        Boot him where? Without Adam Savage "Mythbusters" loses quite a bit of its' luster. I would be willing to bet "Mythbusters" is one of Discovery Channel's more popular shows.

        Right. And no network would dare cancel a show that people around here like. That's why shows like Firefly, Emeril Live and Stargate SG-1, to say nothing of Jericho, Babylon 5, Futurama, Family Guy, and The Office, have been airing non-stop on their original networks for years.

        And let's not even mention how Star Trek is still on the air fourty years later.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by argux (568146)

          Yeah, I'm agree one hundred per... did you say Family Guy?

          • Peter Griffin: [after "Family Guy" returns to Fox with new episodes, after a few years off the air] Everybody, I got bad news. We've been canceled.

            Lois Griffin: Oh, no! Peter, how could they do that?

            Peter Griffin: Well, unfortunately, Lois, there's just no more room on the schedule. We've just got to accept the fact that Fox has to make room for terrific shows, like "Dark Angel", "Titus", "Undeclared", "Action", "That '80s Show", "Wonder Falls", "Fastlane", "Andy Richter Controls the Universe", "Skin", "Gir

      • thats kind of funny. I would be more inclined to watch MythBusters if Adam Savage wasn't on it... To each his own I guess.

    • Re:so (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mashiki (184564) <mashiki@NOspAM.gmail.com> on Thursday September 04, 2008 @02:51PM (#24878821) Homepage

      Very possible that it got enough public traction and that's exactly what happened. Now they're hoping it'll quietly slip under the radar, which it'll probably do.

      I distrust lawyers, and I don't trust TV shows or their hosts. So is it fair to be at odds with the entire thing still? Yep. Is it more fair to believe that security through obscurity is fair? Probably.

      • Re:so (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Shakrai (717556) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @02:55PM (#24878889) Journal

        Is it more fair to believe that security through obscurity is fair?

        Security through obscurity is nothing new to Mythbusters. How many times have we seen them censor themselves when talking about explosives or chemicals when you can easily obtain the censored information in all of 30 seconds with a Google search?

        My guess is that it's something the lawyers make them do.

        • Re:so (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Ron_Fitzgerald (1101005) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @03:02PM (#24879015)
          I agree. Whatever they may say, there most important people are the sponsors, not the viewers.

          One episode in particular was where they were not allowed to say 'sperm'. They had to replace a prefectly fine medical term with 'genetic material'.

          It is a science show for pete's sake!
          • by mattack2 (1165421)

            Cite?

            • Sorry, unable to cite. I somehow got "genetic material" all over my keyboard and now I can't type.
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by LarsWestergren (9033)

            One episode in particular was where they were not allowed to say '*****'. They had to replace a prefectly fine medical term with 'genetic material'.
            It is a ******* show for pete's sake!

            Potentially offensive words have been removed from your post for the sake of the children. Have a nice day.

        • I try to guess what the explosives / secret chemicals are and then search on Google at the end of the show to see if I was right. I'm pretty good at it. It adds some more fun to the show :)

    • Re:so (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Otter (3800) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @02:56PM (#24878913) Journal
      Savage's original claim ("Texas Instruments comes on along with chief legal counsel for American Express, Visa, Discover, and everybody else...") is preposterous on its face. You might get those guys to show up for the finalization of a merger, but not for a meeting between some TI engineers and a TV producer.
      • Re:so (Score:4, Insightful)

        by MobyDisk (75490) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @03:08PM (#24879089) Homepage

        As a programmer, I've been on calls that were supposed to be technical, but due to miscommunications or management concerns managers and even the CEO was on the call. Having legal council there to hear the proposal from the Discovery team seems possible to me.

      • by olddotter (638430) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @03:10PM (#24879103) Homepage
        Dude, have you worked with the legal department for a fortune 500 company? Our company policy is that if something is to be recorded, it must be scripted and the script approved by the legal department first.
      • Re:so (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mugnyte (203225) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @03:21PM (#24879257) Journal

          Regardless of who was in on the meeting and how it happened - it was political, not scientific. This leaves standing the elephant in the room: RFID is simplistic to mimic.

          If one understands the radio wave effects (backscatter or modulation), one could use a scanner to capture all the RFID's within a zone.

          Then, essentially building a device tuned to emit an identical signal (for passive, this is secretive but not impossible as Adam alludes to), (for active, I'm unsure how difficult this is) and then this clone can be used in lieu of the original tag.

          This means for RFID-cards using passive technology, cloning them is allegedly a education measure, not a true security measure. Like unlocking cell phones and other corner-store concepts, one could imagine RFID signatures built-to-order based on scanner values (one need not have the original RFID, just a response from it).

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by The_Wilschon (782534)
          I doubt it. RFIDs that need to be secure (credit card, not product tag) can easily incorporate some sort of cryptographic mechanism to prevent cloning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID#Security_concerns [wikipedia.org], third paragraph. Of course, that paragraph lacks a reference. Trust at your own risk.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by mugnyte (203225)

            I cannot dispute that reference, that's true for active tags. See the reference link, and subsequent quote:

            September 26, 2006 - Passive RFID Tagging Update

            The Department of Defense remains committed to the implementation of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology as outlined in our July 30, 2004 policy memorandum. Since the publication of this initial policy memorandum, ongoing technology developments, updated IT investment strategies, and business process improvements within the DoD have clarified passive RFID requirements within the Department. The DoD July 30, 2004 RFID Policy stated that passive RFID tagging by DoD suppliers would apply to all locations worldwide. The term "all locations" in the July 30, 2004 policy refers to all major receiving locations across the world. The DoD is investing in appropriate passive RFID infrastructure in all locations that are deemed major receiving locations; the majority of those locations are already called out in the current DFARS clause. The DoD requirement will expand to tactical locations as those locations become RFID-enabled. The DoD will not require suppliers to apply passive RFID tags to the unit pack of UID items during the 2007 calendar year. The Department will continue to evaluate the appropriate time frame to begin tagging at the unit pack level for UID items and will promulgate this requirement in advance of future issuances.

            In the passive RFID deployments, there's nothing changing in the signature. Essentially, you only need the know the scanner signal and the RFID response. If a scanner signal is captured without any RFID feedback, you have the clean signal (1st pass). Then, with a valid RFID, you have the response you want to mimic. Tiers of this may be applied, still passively, but essentially the logic i

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by blair1q (305137)

              I think you're overstating that. They're talking about a logistics system for simplifying tracking of material, similar to slapping a bar-code sticker on it, that works when you have a whole truckful of stuff to check-in to a location and don't want to unload it first. That doesn't need any more security than the bar-code or even a printed box label would.

              For secure applications they will have defined a secured system and if it is RFID then it will be a secured system using RFID as a transport for the pro

        • by Machtyn (759119)
          Am I incorrect in thinking that many passports are using RFID, such that the owner can pass through customs uninhibited (or receive other advantages) with the correct credentials? If RFID can easily be mimicked, the "Terrorist" could easily pass through gates unchecked.

          While the general public may not need to know this, the companies that would try to bury this piece of knowledge are doing more harm to themselves and their customers: government and business agencies that depend on security.
          • Re:so (Score:4, Informative)

            by mrchaotica (681592) * on Thursday September 04, 2008 @07:46PM (#24882437)

            Am I incorrect in thinking that many passports are using RFID, such that the owner can pass through customs uninhibited (or receive other advantages) with the correct credentials?

            You are incorrect, but probably not in the way you imagined: the passports do use RFID, but not to confer advantages to the owner. If that were the case, then they'd make it optional and charge extra for it! Instead, RFID in passports confers liabilities to the owner and advantages to the government: it allows the government to surreptitiously track the owner more easily.

      • You might get those guys to show up for the finalization of a merger ...or juicy lawsuit with large television company that has a significant budget to suck dry. Remember, these are IP lawyers we're talking about.

      • by BobMcD (601576)

        The entire telling was hyperbole, and his tone of voice labeled it as such. The details weren't meant to be a factual recap. When he talks about how white the staffer gets retelling the story, that's a big clue.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 04, 2008 @02:49PM (#24878785)

    I reject your reality and substitute my own!

  • Translation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jayhawk88 (160512) <jayhawk88@gmail.com> on Thursday September 04, 2008 @02:49PM (#24878787)

    "I really, really like my job."

    • by svnt (697929)

      What we need is a podcast/youtube version of the show with all the cheap myths that are too boring/nerdy/short/offensive to corporations to make it on cable. Like this myth.

      I'd watch it.

      • by elrous0 (869638) *
        A boring show with no production budget. Sounds like a winner.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 04, 2008 @02:49PM (#24878795)

    SmartCard Bullying myth...

    BUSTED!

    That said, I'm amused that all it took was one lawyer and a bunch of product managers (no bias here, right?) to cow a production company into submission.

  • I smell lawyers... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Coraon (1080675)
    This sounds like the kind of statement someone was forced to read to avoid a PR problem, usually this occurs because a lawyer told him "you can't say that we will get in trouble!" to be honest I'm more likely to believe his first statement.
    • by steelfood (895457)

      It's more like, "I can't believe you said that. If you don't retract it immediately, don't bother showing up tomorrow." In this case, they probably threatened not to renew the contract fir another season of Mythbusters, or outright cancel the contract here and now and pay whatever for violating it. I'm sure a lot of networks would love to pick Mythbusters up.

      That having been said, considering all this supposedly took place in a room full of hostile lawyers, he might have been forced to retract the statement

    • by elrous0 (869638) *
      I would just like to say that I love Comrade Stalin. My earlier comments about our beloved leader were the result of my head being filled with Capitalist propaganda. I can assure you that I am reading this statement of my own volition and that there is not a gun pointed at my head at all. I have decided not to return to my family, lest I fall prey to the Capitalist pigs again. Please do not ask about me any further.
  • by MobyDisk (75490) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @02:50PM (#24878801) Homepage

    It sounds like the blame has shifted, but the point is still the same: they would like to do a show on RFID, but they were politically motivated not to.

    • But surely there should be nothing stopping them. If they document a flaw in a public system, then it is in the public's interest to know about it and there is no legal grounds for a lawsuit. Mythbusters always takes these things cautiously anyway: things like mixtures for explosives or flammable materials are bleeped out or not mentioned. I'm certain they would be happy to withold enough information to mean that no-one can do a real attack based on the information on the show alone.
  • by TenBrothers (995309) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @02:50PM (#24878803)
    become a cartoon. Maybe like Rocky & Bullwinkle. "Hey Jamie! Watch me pull our show's credibility out of a hat!"
  • "the decision was not made by Discovery or their advertising sales department but rather MythBuster's production company, Beyond Productions."

    Riiiiiiiight..... **rolling eyes**

    • Re:Retraction? heh (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Chris Burke (6130) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @03:04PM (#24879047) Homepage

      No, no, that's probably true! Discovery didn't make the decision, they just presented the choice to the production company to either not produce the show, or take a long walk off a short pier.

      Beyond Productions made the decision of which option to take entirely on their own.

      • Re:Retraction? heh (Score:4, Informative)

        by nospam007 (722110) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @03:40PM (#24879537)

        >Discovery didn't make the decision, they just presented the choice to the production company to either not produce the show, or take a long walk off a short pier.

        Beyond Productions is an independent Australian company and sells sometimes different versions to the UK and other countries (which also don't have the 'don't try this at home' stuff and where you can say things like 'sperm' on TV), they could very well do it in this case as well.
        Different network, same torrent.

  • hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tool462 (677306) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @02:54PM (#24878883)

    I think it's safe to say that if he didn't have an intimidating phone call with a bunch of lawyers before, he HAS now. :)

  • And that's all I have to say about that!
  • In other words (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @03:00PM (#24878981)

    TI is obviously hoping that by quibbling over details, people will manage not to notice that the core of the story hasn't changed.

  • by sycodon (149926) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @03:05PM (#24879063)

    ...the story was accurate.

  • Why? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Armakuni (1091299) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @03:06PM (#24879071) Homepage
    Why was there even a single lawyer in on such an innocent call?
  • Sooo ... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MattGS (898687)
    ... the lawyers put the thumbscrews on the production company and not on Discovery then? Wow, what a difference that makes. Boy, I feel the sudden urge to get an RFID implant.
  • by Quantus347 (1220456) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @03:11PM (#24879121)
    Its not the first time that Mythbuster's has had obviously politically motivated skews on their production and/or results.

    Like the time they were testing all the various myths involved in beating alcohol tests (Breathalyzer, etc) and were very careful to word their statements to say that no one method managed to beat all the different tests, and never specifying which methods beat which tests. Or the time they tested the fuel efficiency of drafting behind a big rig truck and spent most of the episode hamming up the potential dangers of tailgating.

    To be fair though, in those cases it was more about Safety (translate Liability) as they could heavily damage road safety and Law Enforcement's ability to police it. Its like how in most fiction Ive seen, they always misquote the proportions of charcoal, sulfur, and salt peter that go into gunpowder, so the young and/or stupid won't go out and blow off fingers.
    • To be fair though, in those cases it was more about Safety (translate Liability) as they could heavily damage road safety and Law Enforcement's ability to police it. Its like how in most fiction Ive seen, they always misquote the proportions of charcoal, sulfur, and salt peter that go into gunpowder, so the young and/or stupid won't go out and blow off fingers.

      I've seen variations on that a number of times, like when they've made carefully obscured the key ingredients for making nitrocellulose. Sometimes they make a joke of it: "Mythbusters brand Blur!", other times they just don't talk about it.

      The one I've always wondered about was when they cracked the thumbprint lock. They carefully mentioned that they had omitted one crucial step. I wonder who was responsible for that?

      ...laura

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by rtechie (244489) *

      The one that got me was the completely non-representative red light camera tests. They had cooperation for law enforcement but weren't given any details on the equipment they were using so we have NO IDEA if the tests were representative of anything you'd see on the street. I know for a fact that they use many different kind of cameras with wildly varying specs in these red light cameras. I also know for a fact that some red light cameras can be easily blinded by glare, I've seen the photos.

  • OK, we get it (Score:4, Informative)

    by mlwmohawk (801821) on Thursday September 04, 2008 @03:16PM (#24879197)

    The decision was made by the Mythbuster staff in much the same way a man with a gun directed at him volunteers.

    Anyone see "Wrong Trousers?" Gromit puts down the bat when feathers points the gun.

    (Instant karma for using Wallace & Gromit!)

     

  • You can mod it off-topic if you like, but I prefer discussion here than YouTube. So, HOLY CRAP what the heck was up with that crazy ranting New York pizza lady they cut off at the end of that clip? Man, ask a question and sit down.

  • the SCA beat him up with rattan swords.

  • The net result of all this furor over this subject: Solidly reinforces my initial aversion towards so-called "smart" credit cards/payment devices, to the point where I will never consider using one. If they were smart about it, they'd not only let them do the show, but learn from what they discovered in the process and fix the damned technology!
  • How about instead of looking into the vulnerabilities they have a show on blowing RFID tags up. Or dropping them from a crane. Or perhaps strapping lots of them to a plane and taxiing around while "testing" their effects on the instruments?

    No on second thoughts lets just stick with blowing them up! That's what Mythbusters do best.

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.

Working...