Weak attempt at an appeal to authority argument. None of those people dispute the FACTS I cited, facts which disprove
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Fail-Safe
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 11, 2014 01:58 PM)
Weak 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.
-
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 11, 2014 02:50 PM)
What 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.
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 a FACT that no one disputes, and it DIRECTLY contradicts what's stated in the movie. So the movie's claim is DISPROVEN. -
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 11, 2014 02:54 PM)
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.
-
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 11, 2014 03:31 PM)
That 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. -
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 11, 2014 04:24 PM)
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.
-
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 11, 2014 04:40 PM)
By your logic, one example of a plane crash DISPROVES the generalization that flying is the safest way to travel.
Poor analogy. The statement in the movie is of the form "x always causes y". Your example is of the form "outcome y is statistically less likely with a than with other alternatives, but still occurs". More apples and oranges from you.
As already proven, characters from 1964 would have no knowledge of TODAY'S computers and therefore couldn't include that knowledge into their conclusions
Exactly why I gave the ENIAC vs. 360 example, which an "expert" on computers would have known about in 1964. Also, it's not a defense of the claim in the movie to say "Well, the screenwriters or the characters they write didn't know about examples that prove the claim wrong". It's still WRONG, as the FACTS prove. -
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 11, 2014 05:25 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.
"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? -
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.