Did Not Do The Research

[The Funslinger]

One that has always bothered me is the portrayal of close quarters combat. In pretty much any film, game or visual media, if you have two armies squaring off, the will line up, then run screaming towards each other in an incoherent mass.

You can get away with this if it is a bunch of Berserks, but if you are trying to tell me that that was how experienced soldiers or professional armies would have fought, then you should have done some research.

Exactly. Take the Roman Legionaries, for example. They had depth to their formations (e.g. each unit standing in a square) and when they met with the enemy, their shields would wall up neatly and they'd stab anyone that got too close. Their group fighting tactic was specifically hinged on fighting as a unit.

My favorite example of how this colours people's understanding was in Time Commanders, when the guy insisted on putting their men in a long (but thin) front line. The none-too-organized barbarians just hammered through and split them off from each other. The only time a front line was useful was in things like the Napoleonic era with musket barrages.

 

[Yopaz]

Glass isn't liquid snip

I'm not sure if I get your post there. Please confirm if I am right when I interpret it to this:

Glass, the things our windows, lenses, drinking glasses and anything else you can think of is liquid at STP? Glass the thing made of various compositions of silicates (which are defined by very high melting points) is a liquid? Does anyone really believe that? Please tell me I misunderstood this post or I will get saddened by the stupidity of those who think so.

Nope. I know it's solid. But my CHEMISTRY TEACHER thinks it's liquid.

Wow, I am amazed. Your chemistry teacher really thinks that? You've got to have the most idiotic chemistry teacher ever! Also I understood form your first post that you did not, so I am sorry if I indicated that I did.

My quote again snip

It's both.
When frozen, it's crystalline and solid, but it gradually become softer and less viscous when heated, eventually becoming liquid.
It's very hard, if not impossible, to tell exactly when it can be considered liquid and vice versa.

OK let's start with the basics. We got 3 different states that a substance can be in. There's gas, liquid and solid. Now take water. At temperature below 0 Celsius it is solid. In the are 0 to 100 it's liquid, after that it's gas. If we are in a room where the temperature is below 0 (let's say -10) will you be able to determine if the ice cube I am holding is in a solid or liquid state?
It's actually quite easy. If it is not viscous and does not allow easy movement of molecules when you touch it the molecule is a solid.
Glass, composed of silicates in an intricate pattern creates advanced networks (not at the level of carbon) and thus got an extremely high melting point compared to what you would expect form the polarity of the molecules involved. Even the glass with the lowest melting point requires more than thousand degrees before it melts. When we refer to something as a liquid, we mean that it is liquid at STP (standard temperature and pressure), oxygen exist as a liquid, do you refer to oxygen as a liquid or a gas?

 

[mrblakemiller]

-A lot of people think there's a line in the Bible that goes something like "better to spill your seed in the belly of a whore than on the ground to be trampled by men." It seems to say that having extramarital sex is still better than masturbation. There is no such verse in the Bible.

It's been a while since I did any studies, but the part to which you are referring is in fact in the bible. I wont say how the actual quote goes since I have never read the English version so the words are very different. However this quote, or misinterpretation is from a story the story of Onan. Because of some social rules he had to marry the widow of his brother Er, but he did not want his brother's wife to have children because they would for some reason be his kids (strange logics in the bible stories). So he let his seed spill to the ground rather than having his wife bear children. In short he pulled out. You're right this has nothing to do with masturbation, it doesn't even mention sex outside of marriage since they were in fact married. In the story he was killed by god directly for doing this several times, indicating that this was a very bad sin.

No. No, it isn't. I worried I was wrong when you said that, so just to be extra safe, I googled "Onan", found which chapter he was in (Genesis 38), and read it in English and with a Hebrew text as well (I haven't taken Hebrew yet, though, full disclosure). This is Onan's entire life story in the Bible:

"And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah?s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD put him to death. Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother?s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother?s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also."

Nothing in those verses sounds remotely like the old "proverb". This is what I dislike: everyone is just sure that they remember the 1,000-chapter book correctly. Not trying to be mean, but it's annoying. If you're saying that the quote sounds like the Onan story, that's your opinion, but what I dislike is people thinking they're quoting Scripture that allows them to say, "Well, my balls are blue, God would rather I have sex than lose control and fap."

 

[SckizoBoy]

Isn't plasma considered a state of matter or is it just basically really freaking hot gas? (Been awhile since I was in school)

Depends what field of science you're talking about...

Biology: blood content that excludes the blood cells (red & white)... often confused with tissue fluid.

Physics: high-energy ionised gas about sums it up...

 

[Dracowrath]

Not much comes to mind really, except recently I was over at tgwtg and watched one of Phelous' old reviews for the third anaconda movie. "What's the temperature of that river?" "About 30-40 degrees" "Well snakes are cold blooded, so it should only be able to survive in there for about 20 minutes" um, WUT? Pretty sure reptiles spend more than 20 minutes in water when trying to cool off, and especially when hunting.

There's also the major error in the second anaconda movie. It's set in Borneo, which is very odd considering THERE ARE NO ANACONDAS IN BORNEO.

 

[Spectral Dragon]

Nope. I know it's solid. But my CHEMISTRY TEACHER thinks it's liquid.

Wow, I am amazed. Your chemistry teacher really thinks that? You've got to have the most idiotic chemistry teacher ever! Also I understood form your first post that you did not, so I am sorry if I indicated that I did.

It's both.
When frozen, it's crystalline and solid, but it gradually become softer and less viscous when heated, eventually becoming liquid.
It's very hard, if not impossible, to tell exactly when it can be considered liquid and vice versa.

OK let's start with the basics. We got 3 different states that a substance can be in. There's gas, liquid and solid. Now take water. At temperature below 0 Celsius it is solid. In the are 0 to 100 it's liquid, after that it's gas. If we are in a room where the temperature is below 0 (let's say -10) will you be able to determine if the ice cube I am holding is in a solid or liquid state?
It's actually quite easy. If it is not viscous and does not allow easy movement of molecules when you touch it the molecule is a solid.
Glass, composed of silicates in an intricate pattern creates advanced networks (not at the level of carbon) and thus got an extremely high melting point compared to what you would expect form the polarity of the molecules involved. Even the glass with the lowest melting point requires more than thousand degrees before it melts. When we refer to something as a liquid, we mean that it is liquid at STP (standard temperature and pressure), oxygen exist as a liquid, do you refer to oxygen as a liquid or a gas?

Yeah, but it's not something she could test, so she rolled with the "fun fact" that it seems like.

Although I think crystallines have a bit more fleeting temperatures for melting/boiling etc. But for reasonable temeratures, it's always solid. It is a bit misleading that you say that it forms an intricate network, given that it has no proper structure. It's fairly random.
Oh, and the nitpicker in me wants to add that you forgot plasma.

 

[spartandude]

The first thing i thought when i read the title was Fox News

 

[sniddy_v1legacy]

Time travel - most shows/books that mess with time travel fuck it up

I'm not an expert but I know a little - example watching Terra Nova last night and when they FINALLY got round to correcting the HUGE flaw (different time streams) I relaxed a little - this shows a modicum of understanding and respect - I shall see if you develop into a real show or a stinking dog turn and/or get canceled after 1 season

 

[ace_of_something]

So what are the most annoying mistakes writers and other thinkers make about the things you like?

As a detective can I just say "CSI" in general. I've actually had to sit in trials where the first thing the prosecution attorney has to do is let the jury know that technology from CSI doesn't exist. DNA testing doesn't work like that. Etc. For like a half hour. I've seen at least 4 DAs do this because it's such a prevalent problem.

Thanks a lot CSI actual criminals are going free because you've made juries have unrealistic expectations of evidence.

Also, any time someone on TV sites using a police sketch artist or they have the criminals stand in a line up.

In my 10ish years as a a police officer of a large dept. I've never seen us use a sketch artist or 'imaging software' My brother a 18 year veteran of a much larger different force has said they stopped using both those things in the early-mid 90's because they were proven to be ineffective.

Yet people still put them in shows.

 

[Tyrant T100]

Being interested in military history and weaponry the ones that really annoy me are:
Weapons not being powerful enough (Someone gets shot a dozen times with a 9mm and survives)
No idea how chemical weapons work (The Rock and the bright green VX that "melts" your skin)
Not understanding the difference between stopping power and lethality (Someone gets shot, they either die instantly or it doesn't effect them, they never get incapacitated)

and sadly you get people who then argue on the internet to insult certain weapons ect because they saw in a film that it was useless.

 

[ace_of_something]

The following pet peeve is admittedly minor, but I can't help but notice it every time it comes up:

Nearly every time an actor is "playing a video game" on TV or film they're manically hammering every button on the controller like their hands are having an epileptic fit. It's particularly amusing if the game they're playing is supposed to be more complex than a simple button-masher. Anyone who's bothered to observe their hands when utilizing a game controller knows that the movement of the digits are calculated and precise.

Or better yet when the actor is say... holding a N64 controller as a xbox system is sitting in front of the TV and their playing a REAL on the screen game... that was only released on the ps2... all while NES era sounds are playing.

 

[Aleol]

Swords, Swords and swords. Nobody seems to understand how longswords work; even though they clearly have two sharp edges and a pointy end, most people think their heavy club-like metal sticks. Seriously? Also, katanas are seriously overrated. They're no better than any other sword

Also armor. Why does armor seem to be made of paper and heavy as a steel beam in movies and videogames? A guy in a full plate harness is not going to go down easily at all, and yet most depictions of it have blades going straight through it. Even stabbing through plate was difficult. and there are other armors too that are given the shaft. I don't mind it in games so much (unless it's a goddamn cutscene), as it's mostly just visual aesthetic, but movies have no excuse. Also, their maille must be really bad quality, because apparently swords can cut through those as well (they can't) maybe a hard stab, but not a cut.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArmorIsUseless

Katana's were pretty crappy swords really. I mean I think they WERE sharp, but the edge dulled pretty fast if it was used pretty well, and it was fairly brittle to be using against metal armor or to be striking against other weapons. As I understand it it was largely a symbolic weapon, used as a status symbol, in duels and against unarmored peasants. The samurai's real combat weapons were spears, other pole arms and bows. (Pretty sure most of this is incorrect but I'm not sure if all of it is.)

I believe western swords, or really any blade could cut through armor.... eventually, and given enough force but it would largely wreak havoc on the edge( dulling the every loving SHIT out of it) and probably damaging the structural integrity of the entire weapon... unless they were specifically designed to counter armor. As said stabs would be much more likely to work as most were generally designed to foil slashes rather then trusts.

Typically you looked for gaps in the armor (joints typically as you have to be able to move), used a blunt weapon which could possibly do even MORE damage on someone wearing armor than someone who is not (crushing through plate to the point the owners own armor is stabbing them into something vital or crushed in so heavily that they suffocate), or use arrows which have all that inertia to help them penetrate the armor.

Yeah, I know. Most people don't know though.
Katanas were essentially dueling weapons.
European and middle eastern armor is largely underrated. Plate armor was extremely tough and not easily pierced. It's actually been used quite a bit in the last 300 years in wars to protect soldiers.
Swords aren't exactly armor breakers. It usually took a specialized weapon (warhammer, pike, halberd, mace) but the sword itself was quite versatile, and often soldiers held the blade such that they could use the pommel as a hammer (with protection of course) Axes were also quite effective.

I am personally ashamed for using the wrong form for "they are" in my original post.

 

[Tyrant T100]

Swords, Swords and swords. Nobody seems to understand how longswords work; even though they clearly have two sharp edges and a pointy end, most people think their heavy club-like metal sticks. Seriously? Also, katanas are seriously overrated. They're no better than any other sword

Also armor. Why does armor seem to be made of paper and heavy as a steel beam in movies and videogames? A guy in a full plate harness is not going to go down easily at all, and yet most depictions of it have blades going straight through it. Even stabbing through plate was difficult. and there are other armors too that are given the shaft. I don't mind it in games so much (unless it's a goddamn cutscene), as it's mostly just visual aesthetic, but movies have no excuse. Also, their maille must be really bad quality, because apparently swords can cut through those as well (they can't) maybe a hard stab, but not a cut.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArmorIsUseless

Katana's were pretty crappy swords really. I mean I think they WERE sharp, but the edge dulled pretty fast if it was used pretty well, and it was fairly brittle to be using against metal armor or to be striking against other weapons. As I understand it it was largely a symbolic weapon, used as a status symbol, in duels and against unarmored peasants. The samurai's real combat weapons were spears, other pole arms and bows. (Pretty sure most of this is incorrect but I'm not sure if all of it is.)

I believe western swords, or really any blade could cut through armor.... eventually, and given enough force but it would largely wreak havoc on the edge( dulling the every loving SHIT out of it) and probably damaging the structural integrity of the entire weapon... unless they were specifically designed to counter armor. As said stabs would be much more likely to work as most were generally designed to foil slashes rather then trusts.

Typically you looked for gaps in the armor (joints typically as you have to be able to move), used a blunt weapon which could possibly do even MORE damage on someone wearing armor than someone who is not (crushing through plate to the point the owners own armor is stabbing them into something vital or crushed in so heavily that they suffocate), or use arrows which have all that inertia to help them penetrate the armor.

Yeah, I know. Most people don't know though.
Katanas were essentially dueling weapons.
European and middle eastern armor is largely underrated. Plate armor was extremely tough and not easily pierced. It's actually been used quite a bit in the last 300 years in wars to protect soldiers.
Swords aren't exactly armor breakers. It usually took a specialized weapon (warhammer, pike, halberd, mace) but the sword itself was quite versatile, and often soldiers held the blade such that they could use the pommel as a hammer (with protection of course) Axes were also quite effective.

I am personally ashamed for using the wrong form for "they are" in my original post.

Yes this, pommels became popular on swords because it made it far easier to damage plate armour, however many knights carried small daggers which were designed to make the job of getting through the plate or small gaps in the armour far easier.
It was the crossbow that removed armour from the battlefield due to it slicing through the best plate like butter, the Pope tried to ban Crossbows because it made it easy for peasants to kill a skilled knight.
Modern body armour however is much better than traditional armour, a modern Flak Jacket will provide the same slash and stab protection as the plate armour, but it also softens blows, which the plate wasn't capable of.

 

[direkiller]

What's the most egregious example you've seen of someone Not Doing The Research?[/B]

CSI:"Terminal Velocity is 9.8m/s^2 he would have hit the ground in under 5 seconds"

They got something wrong that is taught in middle school science.

 

[Kolby Jack]

One slightly glaring problem with Mass Effect is Liara. She is a Xeno-archeologist (someone who digs up and categorises the remains of unknown civilisations) and yet is listed as an 'Asari Scientist'. Archeologists do know a smattering of science (it does help with digs) but they are firmly in the HUMANITIES camp and are not SCIENTISTS, as they study the works of humans. I think the confusion probably set in as it is possible to gain a doctorate in both history and archeology which does give them the right to stick 'Dr.' in front of their names.

This may sound pedantic, but as a humanities student, this is such a collosal error I'm amazed that none of the writers pointed it out!

What about having an honorary doctorate in Fine Arts? Like Sir Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA?