galadiman

I predicted that as well... once there was a female, I predicted she was Orwell, and once Orwell was revealed, I immediately jumped to his daughter. But seriously, if she wants to run 'under the radar', she needs a less flashy car. AND to be a little less Hot.......

As long as I can get me a miter, then we're all good...

HAMIDON POPE RAID!

"Let's not go to Camelot. It's a silly place."

Yeah, but the pain was some dumbhead dweeeble who could't figure out his backside from a doorknob.

Oh wait, I was the pain!

Um... are there rules against self-trashtalk? Do I need to pay a fine?

(Using Durakken Logic: )

"Excellent. You seem to agree with all of us." If you take a thing, and increase its size by several orders of magnitude, generally speaking, within the known laws of our current physical universe, and any close analogue to our current physical universe that does not completely ignore its basic tenets, the larger thing will be significantly more complex than the smaller structure, due to the necessities brought upon it by such physical realities as heat dispersion, materials stress limits, inefficiencies of scale, increased need for interrelated subsytems, and other systemic limits imposed by physical realities.

Furthermore, a large single entity that is designed to do a task will generally be significantly more complex than a large number of smaller independent entities that is effectively able to do the same task, due to similar necessities as stated above. Though some tasks are better handled on a large scale, small indepedent entities can generally handle many tasks more effectively than large entities due to difficulties as above as well as coordination requirements, safety and redundancy concerns, and the need for systemwide security to prevent total systems collapse, among a possible litany of others.

The above examples are by no means comprehensive, and by necessity omit the vast repositories of knowledge that have been dedicated over the centuries to the study of the scaling of systems both small-to-large and large-to-small.

Many of these repositories of knowledge are available on a large, ever-growing, (and ever-complexifying[sic]) network of informational databases and information collections known as The Intenet.

I'm glad we could have this discussion. Have a great day.

I'm gonna say I'll listen to a posed theoretical experiment by Einstein, but I won't really say I would give a posed experiment by Durakken the same level of credence or logical weight.

Also, NinjaPirate summed it up well enough; I believe it's what we have been saying this whole thread. Sometimes, titles have meanings.

In what field is your background, Durakken?

No. This statement is a complete LIE.

WHAT? How far could you SAFELY drive a car without a windshield? Ever gotten hit by a pebble going 50 mph in the other direction on your windshield? Tiny chip.

How about your face?

I guess I have to be totally explicit.
You cannot glue 50,00 ships together and have them cooperate.
Because the captain of each ship wants to Do His Own Thing.
You would have to convince them all to cooperate.
Which is much more difficult than having One leader deciding and doing things.

Now before you use this as evidence that 50k ships is more complex than one...

The 50k ships each have their own master, but in a flotilla in which all the ships have the same goal, they're all just moving from A to B. They each take care of their own little bubble. Which is much easier than one person taking care of all their bubbles.

Here's a corollary that sums up the idea.

Did you ever go to the movies with one other person?
Did you ever go with 10 other people?
Were these 2 activities different in any way?
For example, in the larger group, was it harder to decide which movie to see?
Was it harder to decide who would sit where? Who would get the food? Who would get the tickets??

Is any of this getting through?

May I ask what you do in real life that none of this is making sense?

#1: I believe ou are referring to me in the first paragraph above, and you are wrong asserting that I don't think subbing a folding windshield for a fixed one is not making it more complex. A windshield is an intrinsic part of the functioning of an automobile, so subbing as above would definitely make it more complex.

(edit: whereas bringing my iPod into a car would NOT make the car more complex.)

#2 Ironik and I are in agreement. We are not contradicting each other at all. Since you didn't get my argument, I'll be explicit: A folding windshield has more movng parts than a fixed one, and is therefore, more complex.

He said exchanging a fixed windsield for a foldable windshield. What the &*(% is your ultimate point? That in some other reality, where mass is apparently the only thing that matters in physics, that a larger object that accomplishes the same task is no more complex than a similar, smaller object?

I repeat again, how you you make a Bucket that is big enough to take care of business?? It's much more complex than a little bucket.

You have to define the terms of your problem first, then not change them.

I repeat my Bucket argument.