Slashdot Mirror
Structural Engineer On the Fallacies of Movie Bridge Destruction (hackaday.com)
szczys writes: Suspension bridges like the Golden Gate Bridge and the Brooklyn Bridge are favorite victims for movie makers but are almost always shown to perform in violation of the laws of physics. Structural Engineer Alex Weinberg couldn't stay silent any longer. He covers how bridge collapses in several major films should have looked. The biggest offender? Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises.
Next they will be telling us that X-Wing fights can't really bank in space and don't make that "rrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaararrarrr" noise.
Pretty much everything in every movie is not realistic. Why should blowing up bridges be any different.
Go see movie. Suspend your disbelief. Enjoy it. Go home. Get on with the rest of your life instead of sitting around with nerds over analyzing everything.
If you have a few minutes to waste, or are passionate about suspension bridge structural integrity, well worth a read.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Can physics professors enjoy Road Runner cartoons, or do the blatant violations of physics drive them nuts?
I know one who attempted to codify the cartoons rules, such as "a being doesn't actually fall until they realize they are (inadvertently) suspended in the air." She said, "If you are going to make a fake world, at least be consistent in it."
Maybe one expects cartoons to be goofy, whereas action and drama movies attempt to look real, and that's what sets subject experts off.
I know some real crime analysts, and CSI drives them crazy.
Table-ized A.I.
http://www.dgp.toronto.edu/~ka...
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
These main cables form a parabola
A cable hanging under its own weight forms a catenary, not a parabola. I presume that still applies when you hang a roadway from it.
Heh. My brother and I grew up watching James Bond movies. And obviously, these movies are entertainment and fantasy, not documentary and physics lectures. We all knew that. We all accepted that. But one day my bother went to see a James Bond movie, and he came home positively spitting nails.
It was the the movie where there is a chase scene on skis, so Bond skis down a mountain, and the bottom of the mountain delivers him to the roof of a chalet, and he skis down the roof, and off the edge, and lands on a picnic table, and skis across the table and then keeps on going. And when I say "picnic table", I don't mean a deserted, snow-covered table. The table was laid with a table-cloth and a picnic and people sitting all around. (I don't recall if Bond came off of it with a dinner roll stuffed in his mouth, like a Loony-Toons character).
Anyway. The problem was that my bother skied. And he knew, from painful, first-hand experience, that if you are skiing down a mountain, and you hit just the tiniest bare spot--just the tiniest patch of dirt or rock--it feels like your ski has been grabbed by a bear trap, and you're lucky if you don't tumble right there. Skiing across a picnic table isn't a skill, or a stunt--it's just flat impossible.
Bond movies are unrealistic, yes, but this one was unrealistic in a way that he couldn't accept. And it killed the movie for him.
Very fun movie to watch, but wow the bad physics. TFA mentions the Golden Gate Bridge standing in the background with the center span broken. Compared to all the other physics goofs, I didn't even notice that one.
- Oil tanker swung like a baseball bat (it would buckle and snap in half just lifting it by one end).
- Helicopters carrying gigantic armored robots (a C-5 Galaxy can carry a single M1A2 Abrams tank).
- EMP-type event not affecting one robot because it's nuclear powered.
- Nuclear reactor causing a nuclear explosion (they can't do that, their fuel isn't even the right type to attain uncontrolled criticality).
- Giant monsters with exoskeletons (they would collapse under own weight). I let this one pass because of the Godzilla tradition, including the streets and buildings.
I also take issue when they use unrealistic methods of destruction. Like in I am Legend, they use fighter jets to shoot missiles edge-on. Makes no sense when you could much more easily drop a bomb from above.
Always happy to share our vast quantity of experiences.
Have gnu, will travel.
Poo. I was hoping that as a structural engineer qualified to do the simulations, he would have shown us an animation or three depicting the effect various kinds of damage would have on the real bridges!
I'm with you on all of those.
For those that might be wondering about the oil tanker(and such). Consider how strong, proportionally, insects are compared to humans. This scaling continues. It's relatively easy to make a toy helicopter that can fall from several times it's height, ram it's blades into objects, and such and still come out without damage. A helicopter big enough for people? No way.
Things like oil tankers are carefully balanced and strong where they need to be strong for their designed purpose. A tanker is designed to carry it's weight while supported on all sides by water.
It's also why Superman's hands should tear through vehicles like paper instead of lifting them, much of the time. You don't jack up so much as 1/4 of a car without using specific points that are capable of holding the structure.
I don't read AC A human right
It's been a bit of a shock to see that buildings in real disasters tend to fall apart just like some of the cheap and nasty models in some old low budget Japanese disaster movies. Something that initially looked very fake turned out to look just like real footage of earthquake and tsunami destruction.
Does it feel good to scratch that OCD and NPD itch?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I wish both of you would just fuck off and stop shitting up Slashdot.
http://marsandmore.com - Posters of space, spacecraft, and astronomy.
He's beyond your ken in networking and in programming, clearly. He's done things you never will and did them when he was younger than yourself by far.
So you worked with these things before they were invented?
I was 5 years old when programming on a Commodore, you did it younger?
I was in middle school when I was administering the family computer, you did it younger?
I was in high school when I was working on networking, you did it younger?
Funny how you claim to not be APK, but you know exactly how old he was when he started on these things. Funny how these things weren't even invented when you were the same age as I was when I started.
Everything else in your post has been refuted so many times, it would be a waste of my time to type them up yet again. It is so obvious that you are posting in the third person to defend yourself that I don't know why you continue bothering to act like you are an independent person. Maybe it is that need to be accepted.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
That wasn't the claim made. The claim made was that you were coding at a younger age. Were you younger than 5 when you started coding?
Somehow I doubt it, as you quote 1981, which would put it a mere 4 years before me.
Here is the claim in case you have problems with your page up key:
He's done things you never will and did them when he was younger than yourself by far.
You were obviously not younger than I, as if you are in your 50s now, you started in your teens or early 20s.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Yes, I validly refuted every one of your points. That is why you feel the need to post them over and over again in order to bury the responses. You can always link to a place you posted it where I didn't respond, because you posted the same damn thing thirty times. Perhaps if you would have a civil discussion, you could save yourself a bunch of time shitposting.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
DNS: You have stated that you use a DNS. But that hosts files are so much better because they use less resources. If you are already using those resources by running a DNS server, why not just put the entries there? You have repeatedly stated this, and the lack of logic in the statement is part of the AD DNS comment. The other part was that you told me that you believe distributing hosts files through group policy is better than loading them in DNS because DNS uses more resources. Following that logically, you must think the DNS server in AD (only way group policy applies) does not exist since you are considering the resources it uses as anything other than a sunk cost of running AD. You also bizarrely think that loading 10,000 hosts files scattered over a domain is better than loading the same entries into the AD DNS server one time, and somehow uses less resources. On top of all of this, your hosts file causes name resolution problems so bad, that if you don't hard code all of your favorite sites, your computer would be practically unusable. Because of the way DNS name resolution works, it is considerably faster to enter your 2 million (or whatever) entries into DNS and letting it handle the resolution than to have Windows try and run through a hosts file repeatedly, as Windows hosts file name resolution is absolutely abysmal.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Privilege escalation: This comes down to a combination of our software being marked as malware, and your refusal to submit to a security evaluation/source code review of your software. Your software could frankly be doing anything, and since there are so many ways to get around program tracing, there is no way to trust what your software is doing. The risks of man in the middle attacks utilizing entries buried inside the hosts files or incorrectly updated from your upstream providers, to malware loading and root kit installation. Your software could be doing anything with those privileges, and as they are needed on every host file update, why risk it when there are so many better ways to block this malware instead?
Marked as malware: You can have as many people defending your product as you like, as long as you refuse to submit to a code review and security evaluation, it is all theoretical anyways. One person claiming your product is malware is enough to turn millions off of your product, and it is still out there.
Anything else you would like me to address?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
...about suspension bridge structural integrity", I thought I was joking.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
In stories, we're happy to accept totally absurd giant robots, but unhappy about magical bridges that don't snap back and fall. It's the same in math. If you don't like the backdrop, then you go down a couple dimensions or switch to a simpler manifold or consider the simpler homomorphic structure that preserves the property you want. But make a conclusion about the wrong side of a quadrilateral and your colleagues might throw pencils at you. We are preserving the things that are important to achieve a correct model.
"His post is trying to refute MiTM attack opportunity his software provides" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015
I DISPROVED your bs below & in the post before this-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + only hardcoded favorites are ones users provide themselves knowingly & they are REVERSE DNS verified.
In my program I internally filter 5,500++ false positives:
1.) Search engines
2.) Antivirus/antispyware pages (e.g. updaters)
3.) Security community sites
4.) Ebay/Amazon + banking sites (for shoppers online)
& more.
(Security community folks I note work on false positives filters in data you take in + removal lists easily done via notepad also, & in my program as well per the above + beyond it so that other sources don't send fp's too).
---
"won't demonstrate security of his product be exposing the source (someone might steal it!)" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015
I don't allow my work to be stolen OR so it's misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
"the secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code and said it looked all good to them" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015
My ware had code verification by Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes' hpHosts & you said my ware hasn't - He's a competent coder & probably BEST security researcher I know of from THE BEST ANTIMALWARE THERE IS http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
---
YOU BLEW IT ON ADMIN PRIV TOO: My program doesn't require it hosts itself does (WFP/SFP) & my program protects hosts beyond that http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
AND
Users set it THEMSELF for autoupdate (current data only vs. threats) + ability to summon services.msc (vs. Windows faults in a slow usermode dnscache service).
APK
P.S.=> You also LIED putting words in my mouth I never said on AD+DNS -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
... apk
Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes' hpHosts has REVIEWED MY CODE & HAS A COPY (he wouldn't host it otherwise)!
http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...
I see nothing to indicate that he has done any code review, he even says that Malware Bytes has no affiliation with your software, and he is hosting it himself. Why would I believe the rest of your claim when there is no evidence for it?
As I said in my post, you can't claim that your software is safe just because you say it is. Point to somewhere with Steve Burn of Malwarebytes saying he has done a code review of your software.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?