On a more serious note, There's the story of how Edison tested hundreds (thousands, even) of different materials in his quest for the best light bulb filament. I'd say that's support for persistence in the face of negative feedback. From a scientific perspective, doing the wrong thing thousands of times in a row can pay off if you eventually succeed.
Edgar Allen Poe wrote a sci-fi story once called (IIRC) "The Shadow and the Flash". It involved two scientists competing to make themselves invisible--one of them focused on making a perfectly black paint, which then would (in the logic of the story) render him invisible except for his shadow. (The other scientist tried to make himself transparent, which rendered him invisible except for his prismatic refraction of light--hence, the title of the story).
Bear in mind, though he is very, very fast, even if the new rules were not passed, he still wouldn't be in the Olympics. Why? Because he can't qualify. His fastest times to date are still slower than the minimum qualifying times for the Olympics.
Oh well. His career is still young, I bet he has room for improvement.
Did they really list tubeless tires as a safety feature? Is India really so behind in technology that tubeless tires are special? Granted I live in America, but this is the first time in my life I've ever heard somebody seriously suggest or imply that any even slightly modern car would use anything else.
The hosts have said on many occasions that they often test scenarios that are not aired. Though the final edit of the show may sometimes provide misleading and incomplete information, I think in most cases the intent and underlying science is as good as they can make it.
Re: the Mythbuster's Hindenburg test, their results were pretty clear and truthfully explained: the "thermite" paint did react, and did accelerate the combustion of the skin of the dirigible, but the overwhelming majority of the combustion was the hydrogen fire, and the disaster would have played out basically the same no matter what the Hindenburg was painted with. Most of the problems we're getting here is people who didn't pay attention, or are misremembering what went on, and think the myth was confirmed (it wasn't, see http://mythbustersresults.com/episode70).
Interestngly, all these arguments assume that the encrypted data:
1: exists 2: is hers 3: is encrypted with a key she knows (a hypothetical friend might have done it for her)
Right now, she doesn't really have to worry about using hidden partitions, self-destruct keys, or any other means of hiding the data beyond basic encryption, because the prosecuters still have to prove that the data is hers at all. Granted it's a weak defense, kind of like saying "that 10-pound bag of cocaine hidden in my car's door panel isn't mine", but it does pose an interesting question: Can you be prosecuted for failing to serve a subpoena, if it hasn't been proven that you actually posess the object demanded?
It's not a design failure because, at the time, the shuttle was operating outside of its designed parameters. Granted, the O-rings were badly designed in the first place--they had been suffering noncritical failures on virtually every flight, according to Feynman's famous report (partial erosion of the rings, which obviously didn't cause the shuttle to blow up, but they were not supposed to erode at all in the first place). But at the time of the Challenger accident, they were flying in conditions that were blatantly outside of the intended design. It's like running an engine without any oil and then complaining when it siezes up.
Well, that's a simplification too. All the "offensive" content was in the game to begin with, and was made by the game company itself. This is not really a third party mod, it's more like hacking Half-Life 2 so you can use the PhysGun or play on the sinking ship level (was that in the shipped version, or just the leaked beta?).
I still disagree that they are liable--the content is only accessible with deliberate, extraordinary measures, meaning anybody that saw the content wanted to. But I don't see this case as applicable to wholly third-person mods.
People who complain that SimCity and its successors don't accurately model city building and management are missing the point. No simulation can totally model the complexities of a city. The reason SC is educational is because it teaches skills like creative problem-solving, planning, and risk-reward tradeoffs. What's the optimum road layout? Is it cost-effective to use parks to offset the unhappiness of high taxes? Will that nuclear power plant allow for greater growth in future years, or will the cost of replacing it in 50 years bankrupt me? Hell, any game that teaches people to budget and stay out of debt is a good thing--imagine what the national debt would be like if the President had played SC. (okay, that's over the top, but very few people have a grasp of how debt really works)
So what if the only way to reduce crime is building police stations. The educational part isn't the concept that police prevent crime, the educational part is the skills learned in figuring out how many stations to build, and in what locations, to achieve an acceptable crime rate while not spending too much money.
Personally, I'm reserving judgment. It seems like a cool idea, but the camera hanging off the back is a total no-go, and in my limited expertise I can't think of how else they could get reliable feedback on hand positions. "Technical limitations" sounds a lot like "we have no idea how to do this".
Methinks a better approach to the problem would be some sort of evolved neural network, like the Blondie24/Anaconda program for playing checkers. It's not the best program ever made, but it was very, very good, and its skill would have scaled if it was given more computing resources. The same program, with minor modifications, could have played Go.
Slashdot Mirror
On a more serious note, There's the story of how Edison tested hundreds (thousands, even) of different materials in his quest for the best light bulb filament. I'd say that's support for persistence in the face of negative feedback. From a scientific perspective, doing the wrong thing thousands of times in a row can pay off if you eventually succeed.
Oops, you're right.
Edgar Allen Poe wrote a sci-fi story once called (IIRC) "The Shadow and the Flash". It involved two scientists competing to make themselves invisible--one of them focused on making a perfectly black paint, which then would (in the logic of the story) render him invisible except for his shadow. (The other scientist tried to make himself transparent, which rendered him invisible except for his prismatic refraction of light--hence, the title of the story).
Bear in mind, though he is very, very fast, even if the new rules were not passed, he still wouldn't be in the Olympics. Why? Because he can't qualify. His fastest times to date are still slower than the minimum qualifying times for the Olympics. Oh well. His career is still young, I bet he has room for improvement.
Did they really list tubeless tires as a safety feature? Is India really so behind in technology that tubeless tires are special? Granted I live in America, but this is the first time in my life I've ever heard somebody seriously suggest or imply that any even slightly modern car would use anything else.
Good save. I hate to see a good discussion Godwin'd so early on.
The hosts have said on many occasions that they often test scenarios that are not aired. Though the final edit of the show may sometimes provide misleading and incomplete information, I think in most cases the intent and underlying science is as good as they can make it. Re: the Mythbuster's Hindenburg test, their results were pretty clear and truthfully explained: the "thermite" paint did react, and did accelerate the combustion of the skin of the dirigible, but the overwhelming majority of the combustion was the hydrogen fire, and the disaster would have played out basically the same no matter what the Hindenburg was painted with. Most of the problems we're getting here is people who didn't pay attention, or are misremembering what went on, and think the myth was confirmed (it wasn't, see http://mythbustersresults.com/episode70).
As long as we're being scientifically correct, you mean thermite, not napalm.
Though to be accurate, he's not making gemstones in that comic, just fulgerites. Which are conceptually cool, but IMHO generally kind of fugly.
Interestngly, all these arguments assume that the encrypted data:
1: exists
2: is hers
3: is encrypted with a key she knows (a hypothetical friend might have done it for her)
Right now, she doesn't really have to worry about using hidden partitions, self-destruct keys, or any other means of hiding the data beyond basic encryption, because the prosecuters still have to prove that the data is hers at all. Granted it's a weak defense, kind of like saying "that 10-pound bag of cocaine hidden in my car's door panel isn't mine", but it does pose an interesting question: Can you be prosecuted for failing to serve a subpoena, if it hasn't been proven that you actually posess the object demanded?
It's not a design failure because, at the time, the shuttle was operating outside of its designed parameters. Granted, the O-rings were badly designed in the first place--they had been suffering noncritical failures on virtually every flight, according to Feynman's famous report (partial erosion of the rings, which obviously didn't cause the shuttle to blow up, but they were not supposed to erode at all in the first place). But at the time of the Challenger accident, they were flying in conditions that were blatantly outside of the intended design. It's like running an engine without any oil and then complaining when it siezes up.
Well, that's a simplification too. All the "offensive" content was in the game to begin with, and was made by the game company itself. This is not really a third party mod, it's more like hacking Half-Life 2 so you can use the PhysGun or play on the sinking ship level (was that in the shipped version, or just the leaked beta?).
I still disagree that they are liable--the content is only accessible with deliberate, extraordinary measures, meaning anybody that saw the content wanted to. But I don't see this case as applicable to wholly third-person mods.
People who complain that SimCity and its successors don't accurately model city building and management are missing the point. No simulation can totally model the complexities of a city. The reason SC is educational is because it teaches skills like creative problem-solving, planning, and risk-reward tradeoffs. What's the optimum road layout? Is it cost-effective to use parks to offset the unhappiness of high taxes? Will that nuclear power plant allow for greater growth in future years, or will the cost of replacing it in 50 years bankrupt me? Hell, any game that teaches people to budget and stay out of debt is a good thing--imagine what the national debt would be like if the President had played SC. (okay, that's over the top, but very few people have a grasp of how debt really works)
So what if the only way to reduce crime is building police stations. The educational part isn't the concept that police prevent crime, the educational part is the skills learned in figuring out how many stations to build, and in what locations, to achieve an acceptable crime rate while not spending too much money.
Personally, I'm reserving judgment. It seems like a cool idea, but the camera hanging off the back is a total no-go, and in my limited expertise I can't think of how else they could get reliable feedback on hand positions. "Technical limitations" sounds a lot like "we have no idea how to do this".
Methinks a better approach to the problem would be some sort of evolved neural network, like the Blondie24/Anaconda program for playing checkers. It's not the best program ever made, but it was very, very good, and its skill would have scaled if it was given more computing resources. The same program, with minor modifications, could have played Go.