Fail-Safe : I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

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.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

Except you haven't cited any facts.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

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.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

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.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film


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.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

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.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film


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.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

"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?

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film


"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.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

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/

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film


"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.


Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

"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?

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film


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.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film


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.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

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.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

P.S. Your complex smartphone is more prone to failure than any simple rotary phone from the 1970s and 80s. I can't wait to hear how you argue that.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

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.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

You are infinitely smarter than I am on the subject. Thanks for the good points! I hope the OP sees your post.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

Ha! Would be nice, but it's the Internet, I don't have high hopes.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

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.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

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)?

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

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).

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

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

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

Tell that to the OP

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

That's a different discussion. I was commenting on a particular premise based on what a character said.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

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.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

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.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

If you want to say "what he really meant was..." or "his actual point was...", go ahead. I was just commenting on what he actually said, namely that more complex machines are more prone to failure. He said nothing about "Moscow-Washington relations", or human systems. Again, I simply pointed out that his statement about machines is wrong, because of the examples I gave that contradict it.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

I understand, but you also said that the movie doesn't squarely place the blame on human error, which is false. The movie is about our mistakes, not those of machines. The stuff about political relationships was read in between the lines, and related to chaos theory.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

Again though, you can say "the movie is really about human fallibity, etc.", but the fact is that the incident as shown in the film is caused by a machine failure. Dr. Strangelove does a better job of placing blame directly on people.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

Except the movie does place the blame directly on people. The incident might have been instigated by the machine failure, but it was human error that allowed the event to come to pass.

Russian Premier: This was no one's fault.

The President: I don't agree.

Russian Premier: No human being is at fault. No one is to be blamed.

The President: We're to blame, both of us. We let our machines get out of hand.

Russian Premier: Still, it was an accident.

The President: What do we say to the millions killed? Accidents will happen? I won't accept that.

Russian Premier: All I know is that as long as we have weapons-...

The President: All I know is that men are responsible; we're responsible for what happens to us. Today we had a taste of the future, do we learn from it or go on the way we have? What do we say to the dead?

Russian Premier: If we are men, we must say it won't happen again. But is it possible? With all that stands between us?

The President: We put it there Mr Chairman, and we're not helpless. What we put between us we can remove.



~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film


The President: We're to blame, both of us. We let our machines get out of hand.
There's no talk in Dr. Strangelove about "machines getting out of hand". The blame is placed directly on a loony General acting according to Plan R, which was authorized by the President. Even the Doomsday Machine operates exactly as its human designers intended.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film


The President: We're to blame, both of us. We let our machines get out of hand.
There's no talk in Dr. Strangelove about "machines getting out of hand". The blame is placed directly on a loony General acting according to Plan R, which was authorized by the President. Even the Doomsday Machine operates exactly as its human designers intended.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

I think the point he was making was that the more complex the machines are, the harder it is for a human to step in if/when needed when something does go wrong.

Really you liked Strangelove better? Are you just more into comedies? Like, did you prefer Airplane! to Airport! ?

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

More complex machines can be more difficult to deal with, but they're nothing but a tool. The ultimate responsibility ALWAYS lies with humans--OUR choices. Saying that the "machines got out of hand" dodges this. That's one of the things I like about Dr. Strangelove. There is NO talk about "machine failure", or "machines getting out of hand". EVERYTHING is focused on the choices that PEOPLE make.

Dr. Strangelove vs. Airplane! is a poor comparison. The latter is pure farce played strictly for laughs. Strangelove is satire, using comedy to comment on a very serious subject (nuclear war). In fact, Kubrick started to make a serious movie, but decided that a comedic tone was more effective. His decision was a brilliant one. What better way to point out the insanity of nuclear war than to show someone who is literally insane as the instigator?

Dr. Strangelove IS the superior film, and it has nothing to do with being "more into comedies". It is ranked number 39 on the AFI's top 100 films,37 on the Hollywood Reporter's list of favorite films by industry people, 42 on the BBC.com top 100, and number 50 right HERE (IMDB top 250). I think that's a damn good consensus. Fail Safe appears NOWHERE on those lists.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

What you say is literally true - I cannot deny that Strangelove is higher.

But - for me personally, Fail Safe has much more meaning, and I'm sure others feel the same way. It was literally my first introduction to global thermonuclear warfare; in other words I saw Fail-Safe before Strangelove, and for that reason, Fail-Safe had a much, much bigger impact on me.

Fail-Safe made me think, and made me think for a long time after seeing it. While I enjoyed Strangelove immensely, and of course it's a great film, it didn't have that impact on me.

I consider a truly great film to be something that provokes the viewer. Recently, there have been two films that did this - Her and Ex Machina. Fascinating looks at artificial intelligence that had me thinking for weeks afterward.




I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

So just what are those failure rates of current day computers eh?
Last time I checked, we live in a world of buggy electronics and crashed servers.
Computers today are always screwing up over something. Bring a modern car in for a repair, and the problem could be due as much to a bad sensor or other electronic component as anything mechanical.

Electronic failure is not a false premise now, any less than it was in 1964.
But the premise was meant to be fictional anyway. The producers made note at the end of the film, the DoD's claim (or some other authority) that no possibility of failure as portrayed in the story existed.

I actually thought it was a vastly better film than Dr. Strangelove,
which was a peculiar mix of self conscious farce and Cold War drama that I just didn't think worked at all.



"Cristal, Beluga, Wolfgang Puck… It's a f#@k house."

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film


So just what are those failure rates of current day computers eh?


Much lower than the less complex computers of the past, which is the point.



Electronic failure is not a false premise now, any less than it was in 1964.


What is false is the strawman premise you created. I never said there's no such thing as electronic failure, only that the facts do not support the contention in the film that more complex electronics are more prone to failure than simpler ones.


But the premise was meant to be fictional anyway.


Agreed. It's not reality.



I actually thought it was a vastly better film than Dr. Strangelove


Of course you can state your opinion, but Strangelove is rated more highly by people on IMDB and critics in general.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film


Much lower than the less complex computers of the past, which is the point.

Now there is a straw man argument, as it is superficially plausible, but not easily determined to be fact.
Comparing an era where computers were used sparsely, and for relatively basic computation, to one which is essentially ruled by computers is basically apples and oranges… One solid fact however is that complex systems today experience an exorbitantly greater rate of failure by their sheer number alone.
The crew of Apollo 11 and it's computer with 64 kilobytes of memory made it to the moon and back, while smart phones today which rival supercomputers from 30 years ago glitch out by the thousands. And their replacement ensures steady business.


What is false is the strawman premise you created. I never said there's no such thing as electronic failure, only that the facts do not support the contention in the film that more complex electronics are more prone to failure than simpler ones.

See above.


Of course you can state your opinion, but Strangelove is rated more highly by people on IMDB and critics in general.

The masses are highly impressionable idiots who's pop culture clouded judgement is not to be trusted,
Kubrick worship and all that. The average movie goer is waiting for someone of authority
to tell them what they like more.



"Cristal, Beluga, Wolfgang Puck… It's a f#@k house."

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film


Comparing an era where computers were used sparsely, and for relatively basic computation, to one which is essentially ruled by computers is basically apples and oranges… One solid fact however is that complex systems today experience an exorbitantly greater rate of failure by their sheer number alone.
You're comparing apples and oranges by confusing sheer numbers with rate. The fact is that the simpler computers of an earlier era (ENIAC, etc.,) were extremely unreliable. ENIAC was down HALF the time. There is no way you can reasonably contend that the much more complex IBM 360 of 1964 had anything approaching such unreliability. Saying that there are "thousands" of failures (out of BILLIONS of smartphones) amounts to a failure rate on the order of one ten thousandth of one percent, far smaller than the much simpler IBM 360. Your own numbers prove my point.



The masses are highly impressionable idiots who's pop culture clouded judgement is not to be trusted,Kubrick worship and all that. The average movie goer is waiting for someone of authority to tell them what they like more.



That amounts to saying "I'm right because I'm smarter than other people on IMDB, and I'm also smarter than movie critics". That's not an argument.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

It's amazing that you're STILL arguing this more than a year later. Now that's a failure rate that can't be argued.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

Since you chose to comment in this more than year long thread, I'd say it's definitely a case of a pot calling the kettle back, not to mention failing to come up with a convincing argument.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

Continuing to argue over the span of almost 2 years, and making one post almost two years later to make that observation are two very different things. It's obvious you're too dumb to know the difference. Just like you're too dumb to understand the point of the quote in the movie. Making you the ONLY one in this thread who doesn't. No one is ever going to convince you of anything no matter how convincing as you're, obviously, too dumb to understand it.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

Your post amounts to nothing more than name calling, meaning you have no argument.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

Perhaps you should read the last 4 pages wherein I lay out my argument pretty thoroughly.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

A computer expert writes:
the computers in use at the time of failsafe by the military were mainframes using tubes. they used tubes because they are immune to EMP's unlike transistors. The us military used tube based computers much longer than civilian companies.
the tubes were more liable to burnout than transistors, but they knew that and were willing to put up with it, better to have one tube to replace than a fried mainframe.
secondly there is plenty of evidence (and papers) that the more complex a computing environment is, the more likely it is to fail, especially if you have distributed nodes, since the failure rate per node is the same.
there are other factors such as workload which effect failure rate, but none of them compare to complexity.

Pointless witty comment here ...

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

A confusion of evolution of systems (over time) with complexity of systems.
The point of evolving systems (progress) is to add capability and improve reliability... an improved future system should be more reliable.
Complexity can be added in the 'now'... for example, local 'simple' weather systems monitoring conditions 'outside'... can have added sensors and control terminals for the entire neighborhood or city or state or country... and you have a complex system with much more chance for failures.
A warning system making hard-coded 'decisions' can expand beyond the operators' ability to analyze, control or correct it in (real) time. The humans ceded control to a rigid non-correcting network, and system of procedures... which made the humans ultimately at fault.

Re: I don't buy one of the underlying premises in the film

Dr. Strangelove is perhaps the best comedy ever made.. it's full of hilarious presumptions.. like "We will choose them for their breeding charactistics, and at a healthy ratio to men, of, say, ten to one" -- and the classic "Men, there's no fighting in here - this is the War Room!"..

Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!

My only regret in life is that I'm not someone else - Woody Allen
Top