I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film
-
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 08:34 AM)
But 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.
-
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 09:18 AM)
His 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.
-
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 01:01 PM)
But 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?
-
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 01:17 PM)
What 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. -
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 02:00 PM)
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. -
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 02:14 PM)
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.
-
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 02:31 PM)
Clearly, 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." -
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 02:42 PM)
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.
-
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 02:56 PM)
No, 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. -
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 03:29 PM)
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.
-
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 03:51 PM)
"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." -
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 03:57 PM)
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.
-
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 05:26 PM)
No 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. -
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 06:47 PM)
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? -
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 07:49 PM)
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 tiedlike 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? -
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 07:58 PM)
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.
-
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 08:07 PM)
Then 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. -
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 08:22 PM)
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. -
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 08:32 PM)
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. -
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 08:39 PM)
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.