At one point, a technology "expert" claims that more complex machines are more prone to failure than simpler ones. This is a false premise, and can easily be disproven by comparing the failure rates of today's computers (which are immensely more complex) with that of early 60s models. I much prefer Dr. Strangelove, which places the blame squarely where it belongs--on people.
shareThe "expert" didn't have the luxury you have to compare his 1960s technology with your current-day technology. He was speaking of his experience with the technology at the time.
share1960s era computers were more complex and more reliable than 1950s era computers. He could have made that comparison.
shareBut since he didn't specify a comparison between 1960s computers and 1950s computers. His comparison was only to complex and simple technologies. He said nothing about technologies from different eras. You're adding that to make your point. Obviously, if he were comparing technologies of different eras his conclusion would be different.
shareHis claim was that "more complex is more prone to failure than simpler". I'm saying that as an "expert", he should have been aware that the history of electronics, including electronic computers (it was an electronic failure that was depicted as causing the problem), showed otherwise.
shareBut now you're making a claim that history showed otherwise. Were you alive then? Can you provide some links to support your claim? Or even cite some examples of simpler technologies that were more prone to failure over a more complex one back in the early 60s?
shareWhat does "being alive then" have to do with anything? You're saying knowledge of the past is impossible unless one was "there"? Compare the complexity and reliability of the ENIAC computer with that of the IBM 360, and tell me how that doesn't contradict what the guy said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC
From that article:
"Several tubes burned out almost every day, leaving it nonfunctional about half the time. Special high-reliability tubes were not available until 1948. Most of these failures, however, occurred during the warm-up and cool-down periods, when the tube heaters and cathodes were under the most thermal stress. Engineers reduced ENIAC's tube failures to the more acceptable rate of one tube every two days."
The IBM 360 had nowhere near such a failure rate.
Again, the "expert" should have known this.
But isn't that (again) an example of improved technology over the course of two different eras? Of course the IBM 360 was more reliable and stable compared to the ENIAC, just as most technologies are 15 years later.
Here's my example that supports the "expert": Television during the 1960s. A consumer television set was an example of a "simple" technology. And the technology involved in broadcasting TV shows would be the "complex." Back in the early 60s, shows were often interrupted by technical difficulties. To reassure viewers that a break in transmission was entirely due to the studio (and not their TV set), a common caption displayed during these periods was: "Do not adjust your set - normal service will be resumed as soon as possible." A simple TV set had a few things that could wrong with it - tubes and cathodes. But the problems more often came from the studio side where they were dealing with much more complex technologies required to transmit their broadcasts.
Oh, but the "expert" didn't qualify his statement by talking about different "eras". He said that a more complex machine fails more often than a simple one. Period. That is clearly wrong. Your comparison of studio problems to a TV is apples and oranges. Studios had a chain of technologies involving many people, all of whom could make mistakes.
shareClearly, since he didn't specify technologies from different eras, his comment wasn't meant to cross technologies with different eras. Again, the reason you keep adding that is to make your point. But if you're going to bring in different eras because he DIDN'T specify, then so can I and I can use examples of complex technologies from the 1930s not being as reliable as simple technologies from the 1970s. You can't have it both ways.
My analogy doesn't rely on human mistakes. I specifically said "technical problems."
Excluding different "eras" is your idea, not his. The theme of the movie was clearly that US defense was in an "era" where it was relying on more complex machines, so it makes no sense to exclude "eras" when discussing simple vs. complex. As for "technical problems", such problems are often caused by human error in a large organization.
shareNo, INCLUDING different eras is your idea. His quote was a distinction between complex technologies vs simple technologies, and you know that. His comment had nothing to do with 15 year old technology vs 1964 technology. That's something you keep bringing into it as examples of how he was wrong. I'm not excluding anything. I'm just not including anything he didn't say. That's not an exclusion.
Absolutely no doubt technical problems can be caused by human error, but it's my analogy and I already said (twice now) that I'm not including humans as the cause of said "technical" errors. I'm referring to the technical errors that come from the complex inner workings of a broadcast camera, the cables that relay the visual information received by the camera sensor to the control room where there were literally dozens upon dozens of electronic devices that all worked together to send a signal into the air, where yet more complex technology was required to send that signal to TV sets around the country.
Including different eras isn't "my idea". It's the logical implication of what he said and the theme of the movie, which is the more complex era of the nuclear age. If he meant to exclude a "simpler" era of US defense, he would have done so, but he was doing the OPPOSITE. He was comparing ERAS.
share"logical implication"
That's YOUR conclusion.
"If he meant to exclude a "simpler" era of US defense, he would have done so, but he was doing the OPPOSITE."
And if he meant to INCLUDE a different era of US defense, he would have done so. But he didn't. I'm basing my opinion on what he said. You're basing yours on what he didn't.
"He was comparing ERAS."
No he wasn't. And you even quoted him. He never brought up technologies from different eras. If that's what he meant, he would have no need to specify "complex" vs "simpler."
So you're claiming that the movie had nothing at all to do with the increased complexities (including its machines) of the Nuclear Age (IOW, an ERA) vs. an earlier, nonnuclear era. Nonsense. He was clearly comparing a time when machines were more complex to one when they were simpler.
shareNo he wasn't. Here's the exact line,
"The more complex an electronic system gets, the more accident prone it is. Sooner or later it breaks down."
There's nothing in that line, nor in the context of the conversation with the other characters, that at all relates it or compares "it" to electronics/technology of the past. For some reason, this is incredibly important to you that you feel you must win. You're not going to win anything. Even if you were right.
When a person says something, logical inferences follow from it. If a person says "increased medical knowledge results in better medical care", it's a completely logical inference to say that person is saying that medical care today is better than it was in the past, because we obviously have greater medical knowledge now than we did in the past. A similar logical inference follows from the "expert's" statement.
FACT: Electronic systems become more complex over time. Therefore, electronic systems (especially those used by the DOD) in the 60s were more complex than they were in a previous era. Therefore, when comparing more complex to less complex, he was comparing electronic systems of the past to those of the present.
Care to describe the less complex US Early Warning system IN THE SAME YEAR that he was comparing the more complex one to?
It depends on the context. What if that person said that in answer to why they were studying oncology after having studied to be a primary physician? Then "increased medical knowledge results in better medical care" would be about their own professional growth and not at all a statement about current day medical care compared to the past.
General Bogan: Mr. Knapp here knows as much about electronic gear as anyone. He'd like to say something.
Gordon Knapp: The more complex an electronic system gets, the more accident prone it is. Sooner or later it breaks down.
Secretary Swenson: What breaks down?
Gordon Knapp: A transistor blows . . . a condenser burns out . . . sometimes they just get tied--like people.
Professor Groeteschele: Mr. Knapp overlooks one factor, the machines are supervised by humans. Even if the machine fails a human can always correct the mistake.
Gordon Knapp: I wish you were right. The fact is, the machines work so fast . . . they are so intricate . . . the mistakes they make are so subtle . . . that very often a human being just can't know whether a machine is lying or telling the truth.
Care to describe where he was comparing 1964 electronics to electronics of the past in that dialogue?
I already did. It logically follows. Electronics become more complex over time, especially those used by the DOD's Early Warning System. Therefore, when when comparing more complex system A to less complex system B, one is comparing A to system B that was of a previous era. The fact is that people in 1964 KNEW that the more complex electronic systems of the 1960s were LESS accident prone than previous systems that were LESS complex. The premise in the movie is wrong. Period.
shareThen why do engineers at NASA, MIT, etc accept Professor Charles Perrow's Normal Accident Theory which supports the opposite of what you're saying?
btw, how do you know what "people in 1964" knew? And how can you call it a fact when that's nothing more than your opinion? Obviously, those are only more assumptions/conclusions/implications/inferences that you continue to employ without being able to support with actual facts.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Perrow was referring to systems involving organizations, meaning people. From the Wiki article:
"Perrow's argument rests on three principles. Firstly, people make mistakes, even at nuclear plants. Secondly, big accidents almost always escalate from very small beginnings. Thirdly, many failures are those of organizations more than technology."
The "expert" in the movie wasn't talking about organizations and mistakes made by people. He was talking about electronics. BIG difference.
Do you really think that electronic engineers knew nothing about failure rates in the systems they designed? I indeed cited facts, such as the FACT that the ENIAC machine had a very high failure rate compared to the IBM 360. Your contention is that the people in the 60s who designed the 360 were blissfully unaware of this. Yeah, right.
Sorry, but his theory goes much farther than just organizations. You should read more than just a wiki article.
Yes, he was talking about electronics. And how you can't see that complex electronics, which is complex because it has more moving parts (so to speak), has more circuitry, has more wiring, has more data, etc, etc, has more chances of something going wrong than an electric toaster baffles me. Complex isn't synonymous with stability. Or are you going to tell me that your complex smartphone is less prone to failure than a simple rotary phone from the 1970s? Sadly, I think you will.
You really need to stop comparing apples and oranges. Toasters and rotary phones are electrical devices, not electronic ones. The fact is that comparing the reliability of computers and other electronic systems to those of the past is indisputable proof that his generality is wrong, no matter how you try to ignore the logic.
shareI'm not ignoring logic. I'm ignoring your assumption and conclusions based on those assumptions.
shareSo you deny the assumption that electronic systems have become more complex over time.
shareUhhh...wow. First, that's not an assumption and second, I never said I denied that.
shareIt's the fundamental premise that my logic is based on, so if you don't deny it, then you'd have to show where the logic is flawed:
Premise: Electronic systems become more complex over time
Therefore, comparing less complex electronic systems to more complex ones involves comparing past systems to present ones.
I have shown how it's flawed...multiple times. Your "logic" is based on the assumption that the expert in the movie was comparing 1964 technology to an older technology. He wasn't. You can argue in circles all you want about how he was, but that's just your assumption/interpretation. And that's just you adding that to fit your "logic." The actual dialogue and the context in which the dialogue is delivered says otherwise. No matter how much you try to ignore it.
shareYou're confusing "assumption" with "logical inference". If he makes a comparison between more complex and less complex systems, he's comparing systems from different times, because as I said (and which you explicitly said you don't deny), electronic systems become more complex over time. That's the logic you simply can't refute.
share"If he makes a comparison between more complex and less complex systems, he's comparing systems."
Fixed it for you.
"electronic systems become more complex over time."
I've never at any point disagreed with this.
"he's comparing systems from different times"
This is incorrect. This is the part you simply can't comprehend.
No, what you can't comprehend is the logic that follows from preceding premises. You would claim that it doesn't follow that Socrates is mortal in the classic syllogism because it isn't explicitly stated in the premises.
It's a fundamental theme of the movie that electronics in the nuclear AGE are too complex. But I suppose you'll try to deny that.
"It's a fundamental theme of the movie that electronics in the nuclear AGE are too complex."
And therefore more prone to accidents.
Thanks for finally agreeing that the movie is making a claim about a particular AGE. Therefore, it is making a comparison to a PREVIOUS age of LESS electronic complexity. As I've already demonstrated, the history of electronics proves the claim wrong.
shareNot at all. You said "nuclear age." The movie takes place in 1964, in the nuclear age. The expert is talking about electronics in 1964, which is the nuclear age.
"Therefore, it is making a comparison to a PREVIOUS age of LESS electronic complexity."
Not according to the dialogue. Which you keep ignoring in order to make your point.
So now you're claiming that the movie has nothing to do with the dangers of the nuclear age vs. the nonnuclear age (ie the past).
sharePlease quote me where I said that. And then please quote the "expert" from the movie where he compares electronics of 1964 to that of the past.
Oh right...
you can't. And you can't.
Oh, so you DO agree that the movie compares the dangers of the nuclear age to that of a previous age. Therefore, it IS comparing one age to another, and the electronics of those ages are an aspect of them. Like I said, you're essentially denying the logical conclusion that follows from a premise, such as denying that the classic syllogism doesn't conclude that Socrates is mortal, because it's not explicitly stated in the premises.
You simply don't want to face the fact that the "complex electronics are more prone to failure" generalization is wrong. History shows us this. Here's some news for you: Hollywood's portrayal of technology is OFTEN wrong.
"Oh, so you DO agree that the movie compares the dangers of the nuclear age to that of a previous age."
Please quote me where I said that.
"Therefore, it IS comparing one age to another, and the electronics of those ages are an aspect of them."
That's your assumption from something neither I nor the character ever said. You're really good at that.
"Hollywood's portrayal of technology is OFTEN wrong."
That's why it's called 'fiction.' So now you're claiming Hollywood movies are documentaries and real! Wow.
First you denied that you DIDN'T agree that the movie compares the dangers of the nuclear age to that of a previous age, and now you deny that you DO agree that the movie compares the dangers of the nuclear age to that of a previous age. You really don't understand the rules of logic:
"In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true."
"That's why it's called 'fiction.'"
Exactly. The movie's portrayal of technology is fiction. You admit it at last.
"now you deny that you DO agree that the movie compares the dangers of the nuclear age to that of a previous age."
Please quote me where I said that.
"You really don't understand the rules of logic"
And you really don't have comprehension skills.
"The movie's portrayal of technology is fiction."
So now you're claiming that nuclear technology is fiction and not real. The fact is that nuclear technology is real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_technology
Your constant "I never said that" evasions are nothing but an attempt to hide out in the excluded middle, because you know that your silly attempts to exclude the past when comparing less complex electronics to more complex electronics don't work. You demonstrate again that you know nothing about logic.
IS THE MOVIE TALKING ABOUT HOW DANGEROUS THE NUCLEAR AGE OF THE 60S IS COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS AGE? YES OR NO?
"The movie's portrayal of technology is fiction."Yet another evasion on your part. You know that the technology discussed in the movie was electronics, not the technology of the bomb. You've already admitted that the movie's portrayal of that technology is fiction. At least you showed some awareness that there's a difference between technology and Hollywood's portrayal of it, except where you tried your silly little "nuke technology" tactic.
So now you're claiming that nuclear technology is fiction and not real. The fact is that nuclear technology is real.
Actually, "I never said that" means "I never said that." And if I DID say that, you'd be able to quote me. Your constant "I can't quote you" evasions are nothing but an attempt to hide behind false claims that you can't prove, because you know that your silly attempts to exclude actual quotes, either by me or the character, is the only way you can make your point.
"You know that the technology discussed in the movie was electronics, not the technology of the bomb."
First you claimed that ALL technology in movies is "wrong." But now you're correcting me about WHICH technology the movie got wrong - nuclear vs electronics. Therefore, the logical inference that you've made by correcting me, which you would not need to do if ALL technology in movies is wrong, is that the electronics technology discussed in the movie is accurate. Thank you for finally admitting it.
I knew you'd refuse to answer yes or no, because you know that a "no" answer is ludicrous, and a "yes" answer destroys your attempt to exclude electronics from a different era. That's why you're hiding out in your never never land of the excluded middle.
First you claimed that ALL technology in movies is "wrong."
Hollywood's portrayal of technology is OFTEN wrong.
I knew you'd refuse to quote me or the character, because you know that quoting me or the character would expose your entire argument as being based on things NOT said, rather than things actually said.
And here's my exact quote in response to your quote:
That's why it's called 'fiction.'
I knew you'd refuse to quote me or the character, because you know that quoting me or the character would expose your entire argument as being based on things NOT said, rather than things actually said.My argument is based on facts and logic. You originally challenged me to show that less complex electronics are less reliable than more complex electronics, which I did. That resulted in a false claim that no one could have known that that less complex electronics are less reliable than more complex electronics, followed by an attempt to exclude the past when comparing electronic technologies, which also failed. Then you resorted to saying that since the character didn't explicitly mention the past, that he couldn't possibly have been comparing past electronic technology to present electronic technology, even though everyone knows that such technology has grown more complex over time, and that the entire THEME of the movie is the danger of the 60s nuclear era and the more complex electronics used in it compared to the previous era. Of course, you can't acknowledge this, knowing it will destroy your whole "you can't compare that which WAS (was meaning THE PAST) less complex to that which IS (meaning the present) more complex" argument.
That's why it's called 'fiction.'That's a meaningless distinction. You're implying that the movie had no connection with Hollywood (ie the movie industry). In fact, it was produced by Columbia Pictures, which is part of the movie industry (ie Hollywood). Therefore, the movie's portrayal is a Hollywood portrayal. No matter how you try to spin it, the statement in the movie that less complex electronics are more reliable than more complex electronics is REFUTED by historical FACT, now and in 1964. As I said, Hollywood often gets its facts wrong about technology, and this is just another example.
Apparently you don't know that "it's," or "it" refers to Hollywood portrayal and not to the movie's portrayal.
Your original point was that today's computers are more reliable than computers from 1964. Your "logic" was flawed from the start. When I pointed that out, you switched it to comparing 1964 computers to ones from 1948. THEN you claimed that was what the character was saying. Every time I've asked you to show me the quote where the character says that, you refuse to and retort that it's "inferred" or "implied" which makes your conclusion based on assumption - not facts.
"You're implying that the movie had no connection with Hollywood"
Displaying yet again that you lack comprehension skills. There's no such implication. I agree that HOLLYWOOD - including Columbia Pictures - makes FICTION. That in no way suggests that everything contained WITHIN fiction is not based on some reality. The 1997 movie Titanic is a fictional story. But there are facts contained WITHIN the fictional story that are real. Therefore, I can agree that HOLLWOOD makes fiction, but that doesn't mean I agree that every single thing contained WITHIN said fiction is not real, or based very heavily on something real.
You're obviously not bright enough to understand the "experts" point in the film so I'm going to use a simplistic analogy (that you won't understand either):
You're gay and are a wedding planner (you being gay has nothing to do with it, I just liked calling you gay). You decide to organize a dinner party at your house and invite 10 of your closest friends. At the same time, you are also in charge of organizing a wedding for the following weekend. This includes securing the location for the reception, co-ordinating and communicating with the people that run that location, securing a DJ or band, the decor and the people that have to execute on decorating, the seating arrangement for the guests, creating a schedule of events during the reception, and all the minutia that goes along with each of these types of details.
The wedding reception would be the complex party, and your dinner party would be the simpler one. Because of the complex nature of the reception - because of all the various moving parts, all the equipment, all the people, which all impact the number of unforeseeable variables - just by the very nature that you are dealing with dozens of more details than your dinner party, there is a greater chance that things could go wrong during the wedding reception than at your dinner party. That doesn't mean that more things WILL go wrong at the reception. It just means that, mathematically, there are more chances for things to go wrong than can go wrong at your dinner party. If you don't agree with that, then you're just a complete idiot and there's no helping you.
Your original point was that today's computers are more reliable than computers from 1964. Your "logic" was flawed from the start. When I pointed that out, you switched it to comparing 1964 computers to ones from 1948.Of course I did, because it demonstrated that it was true even in 1964, a FACT you're unable to refute. That FACT refutes what's said in the movie, no matter how much you try to tap dance around it.
THEN you claimed that was what the character was saying.He said less complex electronics are more reliable than more complex ones. Historical FACT PROVES HIM WRONG. That is IRREFUTABLE.
I can agree that HOLLWOOD makes fiction, but that doesn't mean I agree that every single thing contained WITHIN said fiction is not real,
I'm going to use a simplistic analogyYeah, one that's apples and oranges, ie people vs. electronics. Stick to the historical FACTS that prove the movie's claim wrong.
"Yeah, one that's apples and oranges, ie people vs. electronics."
As predicted, you don't understand analogies.
Unsurprising that you'd rather talk about a flawed analogy than the facts. The facts disprove what's claimed in the movie. Deal with it.
shareProfessor Charles Perrow, MIT and NASA disagree with you. Deal with that.
shareWeak attempt at an appeal to authority argument. None of those people dispute the FACTS I cited, facts which disprove the movie's claim. Perrow isn't even an authority regarding electronics. He has ZERO background in it. He's a sociologist. That's like asking a marriage counselor for his "expert opinion" on housing construction.
shareExcept you haven't cited any facts.
shareWhat a short memory you have. From my earlier post:
Compare the complexity and reliability of the ENIAC computer with that of the IBM 360, and tell me how that doesn't contradict what the guy said.That is a FACT that no one disputes, and it DIRECTLY contradicts what's stated in the movie. So the movie's claim is DISPROVEN. share
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC
From that article:
"Several tubes burned out almost every day, leaving it nonfunctional about half the time. Special high-reliability tubes were not available until 1948. Most of these failures, however, occurred during the warm-up and cool-down periods, when the tube heaters and cathodes were under the most thermal stress. Engineers reduced ENIAC's tube failures to the more acceptable rate of one tube every two days."
That is ONE example, but does not make your entire premise a fact. Sorry, but taking a single example and then generalizing it as a fact doesn't work - which further demonstrates your faulty logic and lack of intelligence.
shareThat is ONE example,It's an example that DISPROVES the generalization made in the movie. It's silly to say " I say X is always true, except when it isn't". There are plenty of other examples, such as the complexity and reliability of TODAY's computers vs those from the 60s, the complexity and reliability of today's TVs vs. the old tube sets, etc. The movie's claim is demonstrably WRONG. Sorry you can't accept it. share
By your logic, one example of a plane crash DISPROVES the generalization that flying is the safest way to travel. As already proven, characters from 1964 would have no knowledge of TODAY'S computers and therefore couldn't include that knowledge into their conclusions. Sorry you can't understand that.
shareBy your logic, one example of a plane crash DISPROVES the generalization that flying is the safest way to travel.
As already proven, characters from 1964 would have no knowledge of TODAY'S computers and therefore couldn't include that knowledge into their conclusions
"The statement in the movie is of the form "x always causes y""
No statement like that is ever made in the movie. More misquotes from you.
"Exactly why I gave the ENIAC vs. 360 example, which an "expert" on computers would have known about in 1964. "
Which I already pointed out is ONE example and an expert would know that one example does not make a fact. One example is an exception.
Or are you now claiming that the IBM 360 was less complex than a 1964 electronic calculator?
"The statement in the movie is of the form "x always causes y""So your claim is that the character says something of the form "more complex electronics are less reliable than less complex electronics, except where they are more reliable". He doesn't. He says that more complex electronics ARE less reliable. PERIOD. The facts show that statement is WRONG.
No statement like that is ever made in the movie. More misquotes from you.
Which I already pointed out is ONE example and an expert would know that one example does not make a fact. One example is an exception.One example disproves the generalization. You also conveniently omitted the fact that I gave other examples, such as today's computers vs. 60s computers (examples numbering in the thousands), or today's TV sets vs. old TV sets (examples numberimg in the HUNDREDS of thousands if not MILLIONS). Whether or not the character or the screenwriters knew of such examples doesn't change the fact that the generalization IS WRONG, as demonstrated by FACTS.
He doesn't say that either. Still a misquote. The only person you've been able to quote correctly is yourself. How convenient. Your entire argument is made by misquoting.
"You also conveniently omitted the fact that I gave other examples"
I didn't omit it, I already addressed it. But you have conveniently ignored my question, are you now claiming that the IBM 360 was less complex than a 1964 electronic calculator?
"doesn't change the fact that the generalization IS WRONG"
It may be argued that it's wrong NOW, but it wasn't wrong then. The movie, nor the writer, can be faulted for making a statement based only on information known at the time. And no one, NO ONE, ever argued that a statement made in 1964 might be inaccurate today.
For your reading pleasure:
"This is not to say that the present generation of alarm systems are basically unreliable, only that the chances of a breakdown are greater with a more complex unit.
http://tinyurl.com/mmm5568
"The larger the system, the greater the probability of unexpected failure."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemantics
"As you add more components, the system becomes more complex, and the chances of failure increases."
http://tinyurl.com/oq3a37h
"With more hardware the probability goes up that there will be a failure somewhere. Add more software and the complex interactions between different programs creates greater chance for more bugs, including the unusual ones."
http://katemats.com/distributed-systems-basics-handling-failure-fault-tolerance-and-monitoring/
"As systems become more and more complex, their chances of failure-free operation also decreases"
http://tinyurl.com/ngr3a65
"the more complex system the more complex the failure."
http://etherealmind.com/complex-systems-complex-failures-cloud-computing/
"You also conveniently omitted the fact that I gave other examples"The only "addressing" you did was to claim that such facts are invalid, because the character didn't know about them. What the character knows or doesn't know doesn't change the FACTS.
I didn't omit it, I already addressed it.
"What the character knows or doesn't know doesn't change the FACTS."
The fact that you take issue with the character/writer for making a statement about 1964 technology in 1964 when the movie takes place and not be able to draw his conclusions based on data that didn't exist at the time is evidence of what an idiot you are. A complete and utter idiot.
"The FACT is that there are MILLIONS of examples"
And yet you can't even show 5 that doesn't include the characters getting into a time machine and visiting the future to formulate their opinion.
They've done studies about people like you.
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
And I've noticed you've ignored my question for a 2nd time, are you now claiming that the IBM 360 was less complex than a 1964 electronic calculator?
What the character knows or doesn't know doesn't change the FACTS."The data did exist at the time, as I've pointed out MULTIPLE times regarding the ENIAC and the 360, which a computer expert would have known about. If he's ignorant of data, why is he making a conclusion without it? No scientist does that. Of course, there IS no real computer/electronics expert here, just screenwriters who aren't expert in the field at all. At BEST you can say "well, yes, the screenwriters were wrong, but they didn't know enough to know they were wrong". Not knowing correct science and / or portraying it wrong for dramatic purposes is common in Hollywood, as if you didn't know.
The fact that you take issue with the character/writer for making a statement about 1964 technology in 1964 when the movie takes place and not be able to draw his conclusions based on data that didn't exist at the time
are you now claiming that the IBM 360 was less complex than a 1964 electronic calculator?More apples and oranges from you. Compare the complexity of a 1964 calculator to an HP 48, and tell me which is more reliable.
One example disproves the generalization.
You cherry pick one quote from me concerning a single example, and ignore the idea of statistical data. Did the writers of the novel or screenplay have any data to show that more complex computers are more prone to failure? Based on what? Just because something is in a book or movie doesn't make it true. You should know that.
shareP.S. Your complex smartphone is more prone to failure than any simple rotary phone from the 1970s and 80s. I can't wait to hear how you argue that.
shareAMAZING this discussion has gone on this long. Because the OP is unequivocally, demonstrably wrong. This is not a film thing only, not a destructive logic thing, but that there are quite a few people who go to work every day, and probably billions spent each year on the very principle that computers (and especially systems of systems as in the film) are unreliable.
Not prone to failure. Not regularly failing. In a constant state of failure. You really haven't noticed your phone's apps crash and behave oddly, like five times a day? And your phone is not that complex. Don't count operations per second as "more complex." It is designed after decades of CS knowledge to be protected from spurious inputs, and bad data. The computational complexity is relatively limited.
SAGE (what the computer and control and display system in the film was supposed to be, but it was top, top secret for decades and was actually way cooler than this) was pretty much the first big CS project ever. Things we do today about project management were invented here. And it was with horribly unreliable tubes, and took all sorts of sensor data (raw, but for noise over the thousands of miles of phone lines) and had to send signals to missiles and bombers and bases all over. Very complex even by today's standards.
You will say, if you were to put forth a logical argument, "when's the last time you couldn't buy something because Amazon was down?" Never, I agree. Why? Because of Resilience Engineering (look it up... if you were a serious CS guy, I'd just say go to the latest ACM journal or anything similar as it's regularly discussed, but Google will do). Servers are constantly breaking; dozens a day. Disks fail; hundreds a day. Data centers get cut off the network, images get corrupted and whole banks of systems are unusable.
This happens. Constantly. Much of it they don't even try to stop from happening. It is the way things are. Instead, they seek to stop the /consequences/ from being catastrophic. The systems are resilient, are resist falling into a new order (or disorder) but continue operating. Maybe at reduced capacity, but they are running.
The theory of this goes back to the tube computer era, but it's absolutely true today. All computers are arbitrarily complex, cannot be adequately modeled and predicted, and induce failures. Systems of systems are in a constant state of failure. Look it up.
You are infinitely smarter than I am on the subject. Thanks for the good points! I hope the OP sees your post.
shareHa! Would be nice, but it's the Internet, I don't have high hopes.
shareI don't agree with the OP either. To me, complex over simple wasn't the premise of the film or even one of the premises. It was delegating decision making and responsibility to a computer, where not even the President can over-ride it. The complexity was mentioned in the context of things happening quickly, of computers making decisions before we've realised it's made the decision based on a system error. To me, this film gets more relevant every year because of our reliance on computers. And more complex systems are more prone to failure than simple ones. I had a an old car for 11 years, my partner had a swanky automatic. My car has been to the garage to replace tyres, to change plugs, belts and for the usual service. My partner's has been in for the same, plus: because the electric windows brokedown, the central locking chip stopped working, for faulty sensors on the exhaust emissions. A more complex system is more prone to failure. As shoobe01 said it's the contingencies / redundancies that come into play to counter-act those failures, but they are happening, every day. It makes the situation in Fail Safe something not beyond the realms of possibility today.
Cars are mechanical devices, not electronic ones. Also, citing an anecdote of your car's reliability compared to your partner's is not proof of complex vs. simple. Reliability varies according to make, some cars just happen to be lemons, etc. You'd have to show industry data. Is a 1974 Buick really more reliable than a 2014 Toyota? Based on what industry data (not anecdotes)?
shareStrawman argument. No one ever said computers never fail. The contention was that more complex computers are more prone to failure than less complex ones. Show me the failure rates of old tube computers (less complex) compared to mid 60s transistor computers (more complex). Show me the failure rates of mid 60s transistor computers (less complex) compared to today's computers (more complex).
share[deleted]
I don't think the film was trying to compare technologies or reliability. The message, clearly to me, was machines propelling decisions faster than the ability to react calmly, or recall a decision based on subsequent, or more accurate, information.
Push the button, Max
Tell that to the OP
shareThat's a different discussion. I was commenting on a particular premise based on what a character said.
shareLindbergh's choice of a single engine aircraft points to this issue. As a twin engine aircraft couldn't have completed the voyage with one engine out, he chose a single engine aircraft simply because the probability of failure was much lower with the one engine.
shareThat wasn't really the expert's point. What he was actually saying was "the more complex the system, the more catastrophic the failure." The small error created a system failure that cascaded through every avenue. The problem was not only that the computer system was more complex, but that the relationship between Moscow and Washington was more complicated due to human interference. The solution should have been simple: we're sorry it was an accident, please don't retaliate. More over, they should have been able to recall the bombers, but they had trained the pilots to ignore direct orders due to Soviet tricks. The threat of mutually assured destruction tied precariously to such a system meant that only a small mistake could set off a chain reaction. The president even says at the end that the blame is placed squarely on human beings for devising it. Complex systems fail in complex ways that aren't as easy to fix as simple ones.
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.
If you want to say "what he really meant was..." or "his actual point was...", go ahead. I was just commenting on what he actually said, namely that more complex machines are more prone to failure. He said nothing about "Moscow-Washington relations", or human systems. Again, I simply pointed out that his statement about machines is wrong, because of the examples I gave that contradict it.
shareI understand, but you also said that the movie doesn't squarely place the blame on human error, which is false. The movie is about our mistakes, not those of machines. The stuff about political relationships was read in between the lines, and related to chaos theory.
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.
Again though, you can say "the movie is really about human fallibity, etc.", but the fact is that the incident as shown in the film is caused by a machine failure. Dr. Strangelove does a better job of placing blame directly on people.
shareExcept the movie does place the blame directly on people. The incident might have been instigated by the machine failure, but it was human error that allowed the event to come to pass.
Russian Premier: This was no one's fault.
The President: I don't agree.
Russian Premier: No human being is at fault. No one is to be blamed.
The President: We're to blame, both of us. We let our machines get out of hand.
Russian Premier: Still, it was an accident.
The President: What do we say to the millions killed? Accidents will happen? I won't accept that.
Russian Premier: All I know is that as long as we have weapons-...
The President: All I know is that men are responsible; we're responsible for what happens to us. Today we had a taste of the future, do we learn from it or go on the way we have? What do we say to the dead?
Russian Premier: If we are men, we must say it won't happen again. But is it possible? With all that stands between us?
The President: We put it there Mr Chairman, and we're not helpless. What we put between us we can remove.
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.
The President: We're to blame, both of us. We let our machines get out of hand.There's no talk in Dr. Strangelove about "machines getting out of hand". The blame is placed directly on a loony General acting according to Plan R, which was authorized by the President. Even the Doomsday Machine operates exactly as its human designers intended. share
The President: We're to blame, both of us. We let our machines get out of hand.There's no talk in Dr. Strangelove about "machines getting out of hand". The blame is placed directly on a loony General acting according to Plan R, which was authorized by the President. Even the Doomsday Machine operates exactly as its human designers intended. share
I think the point he was making was that the more complex the machines are, the harder it is for a human to step in if/when needed when something does go wrong.
Really you liked Strangelove better? Are you just more into comedies? Like, did you prefer Airplane! to Airport! ?
More complex machines can be more difficult to deal with, but they're nothing but a tool. The ultimate responsibility ALWAYS lies with humans--OUR choices. Saying that the "machines got out of hand" dodges this. That's one of the things I like about Dr. Strangelove. There is NO talk about "machine failure", or "machines getting out of hand". EVERYTHING is focused on the choices that PEOPLE make.
Dr. Strangelove vs. Airplane! is a poor comparison. The latter is pure farce played strictly for laughs. Strangelove is satire, using comedy to comment on a very serious subject (nuclear war). In fact, Kubrick started to make a serious movie, but decided that a comedic tone was more effective. His decision was a brilliant one. What better way to point out the insanity of nuclear war than to show someone who is literally insane as the instigator?
Dr. Strangelove IS the superior film, and it has nothing to do with being "more into comedies". It is ranked number 39 on the AFI's top 100 films,37 on the Hollywood Reporter's list of favorite films by industry people, 42 on the BBC.com top 100, and number 50 right HERE (IMDB top 250). I think that's a damn good consensus. Fail Safe appears NOWHERE on those lists.
What you say is literally true - I cannot deny that Strangelove is higher.
But - for me personally, Fail Safe has much more meaning, and I'm sure others feel the same way. It was literally my first introduction to global thermonuclear warfare; in other words I saw Fail-Safe before Strangelove, and for that reason, Fail-Safe had a much, much bigger impact on me.
Fail-Safe made me think, and made me think for a long time after seeing it. While I enjoyed Strangelove immensely, and of course it's a great film, it didn't have that impact on me.
I consider a truly great film to be something that provokes the viewer. Recently, there have been two films that did this - Her and Ex Machina. Fascinating looks at artificial intelligence that had me thinking for weeks afterward.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.
So just what are those failure rates of current day computers eh?
Last time I checked, we live in a world of buggy electronics and crashed servers.
Computers today are always screwing up over something. Bring a modern car in for a repair, and the problem could be due as much to a bad sensor or other electronic component as anything mechanical.
Electronic failure is not a false premise now, any less than it was in 1964.
But the premise was meant to be fictional anyway. The producers made note at the end of the film, the DoD's claim (or some other authority) that no possibility of failure as portrayed in the story existed.
I actually thought it was a vastly better film than Dr. Strangelove,
which was a peculiar mix of self conscious farce and Cold War drama that I just didn't think worked at all.
"Cristal, Beluga, Wolfgang Puck… It's a f#@k house."
So just what are those failure rates of current day computers eh?
Electronic failure is not a false premise now, any less than it was in 1964.
But the premise was meant to be fictional anyway.
I actually thought it was a vastly better film than Dr. Strangelove
Much lower than the less complex computers of the past, which is the point.
What is false is the strawman premise you created. I never said there's no such thing as electronic failure, only that the facts do not support the contention in the film that more complex electronics are more prone to failure than simpler ones.
Of course you can state your opinion, but Strangelove is rated more highly by people on IMDB and critics in general.
Comparing an era where computers were used sparsely, and for relatively basic computation, to one which is essentially ruled by computers is basically apples and oranges… One solid fact however is that complex systems today experience an exorbitantly greater rate of failure by their sheer number alone.You're comparing apples and oranges by confusing sheer numbers with rate. The fact is that the simpler computers of an earlier era (ENIAC, etc.,) were extremely unreliable. ENIAC was down HALF the time. There is no way you can reasonably contend that the much more complex IBM 360 of 1964 had anything approaching such unreliability. Saying that there are "thousands" of failures (out of BILLIONS of smartphones) amounts to a failure rate on the order of one ten thousandth of one percent, far smaller than the much simpler IBM 360. Your own numbers prove my point.
The masses are highly impressionable idiots who's pop culture clouded judgement is not to be trusted,Kubrick worship and all that. The average movie goer is waiting for someone of authority to tell them what they like more.
It's amazing that you're STILL arguing this more than a year later. Now that's a failure rate that can't be argued.
shareSince you chose to comment in this more than year long thread, I'd say it's definitely a case of a pot calling the kettle back, not to mention failing to come up with a convincing argument.
shareContinuing to argue over the span of almost 2 years, and making one post almost two years later to make that observation are two very different things. It's obvious you're too dumb to know the difference. Just like you're too dumb to understand the point of the quote in the movie. Making you the ONLY one in this thread who doesn't. No one is ever going to convince you of anything no matter how convincing as you're, obviously, too dumb to understand it.
shareYour post amounts to nothing more than name calling, meaning you have no argument.
sharePerhaps you should read the last 4 pages wherein I lay out my argument pretty thoroughly.
shareA computer expert writes:
the computers in use at the time of failsafe by the military were mainframes using tubes. they used tubes because they are immune to EMP's unlike transistors. The us military used tube based computers much longer than civilian companies.
the tubes were more liable to burnout than transistors, but they knew that and were willing to put up with it, better to have one tube to replace than a fried mainframe.
secondly there is plenty of evidence (and papers) that the more complex a computing environment is, the more likely it is to fail, especially if you have distributed nodes, since the failure rate per node is the same.
there are other factors such as workload which effect failure rate, but none of them compare to complexity.
Pointless witty comment here ...
A confusion of evolution of systems (over time) with complexity of systems.
The point of evolving systems (progress) is to add capability and improve reliability... an improved future system should be more reliable.
Complexity can be added in the 'now'... for example, local 'simple' weather systems monitoring conditions 'outside'... can have added sensors and control terminals for the entire neighborhood or city or state or country... and you have a complex system with much more chance for failures.
A warning system making hard-coded 'decisions' can expand beyond the operators' ability to analyze, control or correct it in (real) time. The humans ceded control to a rigid non-correcting network, and system of procedures... which made the humans ultimately at fault.
Dr. Strangelove is perhaps the best comedy ever made.. it's full of hilarious presumptions.. like "We will choose them for their breeding charactistics, and at a healthy ratio to men, of, say, ten to one" -- and the classic "Men, there's no fighting in here - this is the War Room!"..
Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!
My only regret in life is that I'm not someone else - Woody Allen
The original poster was correct. In addition, he was in no way obligated to cite sources. This is a movie forum, not a term paper or a dissertation.
shareIt is about computers of the same time, not across different times.
share