Weak attempt at an appeal to authority argument. None of those people dispute the FACTS I cited, facts which disprove
-
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 11, 2014 05:37 PM)
"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.
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.
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. -
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 11, 2014 06:30 PM)
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/ -
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 11, 2014 06:52 PM)
"You also conveniently omitted the fact that I gave other examples"
I didn't omit it, I already addressed it.
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.
All your systems examples involve people, ie equating the Post Office, national governments, alarm companies, etc. with electronic failures. The character talks about transistors burning out, etc., not human system failures. Yet more apples and oranges from you. The FACT is that there are MILLIONS of examples of more complex electronics being more reliable than less complex electronics, so the generalization FAILS, as do all your examples. -
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 11, 2014 08:32 PM)
"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? -
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 12, 2014 03:30 AM)
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
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.
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.
The rest of your post is an ad hominem rant that shows you have no argument left. -
srinath_r_htanirs — 10 years ago(April 12, 2015 01:43 PM)
One example disproves the generalization.
No, it doesn't. I've gone through the exchanges and your logic is faulty. Get over the ego, it's not going to convince a lot. Or you just don't see it by way of your confirmation bias. Open up and hopefully you'll get it. -
robert3750 — 10 years ago(April 12, 2015 02:21 PM)
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.
-
shoobe01 — 11 years ago(January 16, 2015 07:30 PM)
AMAZING 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. -
Special-Order-937 — 11 years ago(February 24, 2015 02:30 AM)
I 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.
-
robert3750 — 10 years ago(April 12, 2015 02:43 PM)
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)?
-
robert3750 — 10 years ago(April 12, 2015 02:28 PM)
Strawman 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).
-
blackjackxxx — 11 years ago(December 28, 2014 08:16 AM)
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 -
pjmcgill142 — 10 years ago(February 07, 2016 02:20 AM)
Lindbergh'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.
-
degree7 — 10 years ago(September 08, 2015 01:32 AM)
That 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.