One from Die Hard, to lead.
Another who plays Batman, as second.
A aging rock star's daughter as love interest.
And a team of good Joes and funny guys for the rest.
Posted on 05/07/2019 10:17:15 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Let's say I'm writing a SW simulation of a tea kettle on a stove. I finish and run the simulation -- but my water never boils. Obviously I screwed up. So I re-write my simulation. I keep running, testing, and re-writing my simulation until I see that (according to my model) water in a tea kettle will boil when placed on a hot stove.
What has my simulation showed me? Absolutely nothing. I made sure that it showed me what I wanted it to show me. That's how I knew it was "successful".
Global Warming? Asteroid strikes? If the initial run shows a really happy outcome, then your simulation was badly written. So keep re-writing it until Global Warming or Asteroid Strikes show a catastrophic outcome. That's how you know your simulation is "good".
This is how we do science these days.
I bet if they evacuate NYC, they’d still collect tolls. Might even bump up the rate. Need the extra revenue for collision clean up and all that.
Nothing that a massive increase in federal funding couldn’t solve.
We run thousands a year, and run dozens of physical tests to confirm their results.
—
Interesting.
Is there a website that shows such confirmations?
If we address climate change I’m certain the asteroid would bypass earth.
Caught in Manhattan as an asteroid screams in? Might as well get the best liquor you can and squeeze your honey till it all disappears.
How good a job do your simulations do on turbulence in a teacup?
Next weeks’s weather? Will I have 0.2” of rain on my house a week from Thursday?
That being said, they do work very well on some things, I couldn’t have gotten anywhere near as good a design on my microhotplates without them...
Getting millions out in a few days is pretty good work. Plus you’d have a huge effort sending in boats and planes. Probably divert the entire commercial air fleet.
But we may not see it coming and I doubt we can pinpoint the impact area.
Always bothers me to know these things aren’t that big, but a 180 foot rock can destroy a city. Something bigger would not be good.
what if it crashed into Atlantic off NY / NJ coasts. Tsunami? Odds are meteor would land in an ocean
Well, not my field, so I may be totally off base. But if someone simulated a car engine (for example), there is solid science that allows reasonable prediction. And you can run physical tests to confirm the results predicted by the model. I consider this legitimate science.
But Global Warming and Asteroid Strikes involves a lot of guesswork and cannot be verified by physical tests. I don’t see much value in such sims.
They don't seem to understand assumptions, multiple independent variables and expected outcome, just dogma.
One from Die Hard, to lead.
Another who plays Batman, as second.
A aging rock star's daughter as love interest.
And a team of good Joes and funny guys for the rest.
Simulations are a key part of designing and verifying electronics. In that realm, they work very well.
Nah, let's forget all that. Let's just say an asteroid 60 meters wide happens to enter Earth's atmosphere without breaking up.
NY city is about 300 square miles. Earth is about 200 million!
Even if the above happens, there is still only a 15 in 10 million chance it will hit NY city.
The things these idiots waste their time on.
What is interesting, to me, is why the Left refuses to consider that they are that hated. How many people would dance on NYC's grave, and why should this be so?
Except you pay tolls going INTO the city, not out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.