On the d'oh!
October 11, 2004 4:02 PM Subscribe
((U+C+I) x (10-S))/20 x A x 1/(1-sin(F/10) "There's grim news for people who worry that if something can go wrong, it will go wrong. A new mathematical formula has proved Murphy's Law really does strike at the worst possible time." As if anyone needs proof! {via 4blab}
This post was deleted for the following reason: deleted by request
It's very easy indeed : all you need to realize is that 1 = 2 and 1 = 1 , both equations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Grasp that and you're one step forward illuminati and a F vote, which again are not mutually exclusive.
posted by elpapacito at 6:19 PM on October 11, 2004
posted by elpapacito at 6:19 PM on October 11, 2004
Is it Murphy's Law that a post on the quantification of Murph's Law doesn't get any replies, or just plain bad luck?
posted by LimePi at 8:06 PM on October 11, 2004
posted by LimePi at 8:06 PM on October 11, 2004
Bad things happen occasionally, and because the timing wasn't critical, they get fixed without comment. Critical timing happens occasionally, and because nothing bad happened, nobody noticed. Only when both events are selected for do we remember the event as noteworthy.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 10:22 PM on October 11, 2004
posted by aeschenkarnos at 10:22 PM on October 11, 2004
Why everything you know about Murphy's Law is wrong.
There was a real Murphy; he worked with Col. John Stapp on the human deceleration project back in the 50's. Murphy's law arose when an engineer installed some strain gauges in the wrong configuration, which resulted in no data from a test run on the sled. Murphy quipped somewhat derisively that if there were a way for the engineer in question to screw something up, he'd find a way to do it. Which is the motivation behind safety engineering - it's best to only have one way to operate a piece of equipment - because if it can be used in more than one way, and one of those ways is dangerous, people will eventually use it in the dangerous way. That why we have electrical plugs with one connector larger than the other, etc.
The modern version of Murphy's Law is true to the spirit of its original form, but this equation is complete crap.
posted by mbd1mbd1 at 8:21 AM on October 12, 2004
There was a real Murphy; he worked with Col. John Stapp on the human deceleration project back in the 50's. Murphy's law arose when an engineer installed some strain gauges in the wrong configuration, which resulted in no data from a test run on the sled. Murphy quipped somewhat derisively that if there were a way for the engineer in question to screw something up, he'd find a way to do it. Which is the motivation behind safety engineering - it's best to only have one way to operate a piece of equipment - because if it can be used in more than one way, and one of those ways is dangerous, people will eventually use it in the dangerous way. That why we have electrical plugs with one connector larger than the other, etc.
The modern version of Murphy's Law is true to the spirit of its original form, but this equation is complete crap.
posted by mbd1mbd1 at 8:21 AM on October 12, 2004
mbd1mbd1: Thanks for the historical explanation of Murphy's Law--I googled and sure enough you're right! I never knew it was born of many failed experiments so somehow the quantification of it seems fitting.
LimePi: Damned good question, but it was worth a try. :)
posted by mosspink at 9:41 AM on October 12, 2004
LimePi: Damned good question, but it was worth a try. :)
posted by mosspink at 9:41 AM on October 12, 2004
You know, it wasn't funny when it was posted to the zillion other sites either.
posted by angry modem at 11:06 AM on October 12, 2004
posted by angry modem at 11:06 AM on October 12, 2004
« Older A.1.Mail Art Archive | The Perry Bible Fellowship Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:08 PM on October 11, 2004