| Author | Message | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3302 Registered: 5-2003 |
Pretty much everyone has a scrund about a well-known law. What is it? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 1822 Registered: 7-2009 |
Is it a traffic law? Would breaking the law lead to bodily harm? Property harm? Financial harm? Merely an annoyance to someone? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3311 Registered: 5-2003 |
Is it a traffic law? No. Would breaking the law FA. lead to bodily harm? Property harm? Financial harm? Merely an annoyance to someone? If you substitute a different term than "breaking," all of the above are possible. | ||
| Biograd (Biograd)
New member Username: Biograd Post Number: 888 Registered: 6-2008 |
A law in the legal sense? The physical sense (as, for example, Newton's)? The informal sense of a truism (as, for example, Murphy's)? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3312 Registered: 5-2003 |
A law in the legal sense? The physical sense (as, for example, Newton's)? The informal sense of a truism (as, for example, Murphy's)? This. And it is Murphy's Law, by the way. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 2053 Registered: 4-2010 |
Origin of Murphy's Law relevant? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3318 Registered: 5-2003 |
Origin of Murphy's Law relevant? Yes. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 2060 Registered: 4-2010 |
Is it that Murphy's Law originally referred to a certain person, and now is referring to all people? That it originally said that when a person could screw up, he/she would, but now is taken as referring to simply bad luck? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3324 Registered: 5-2003 |
Is it that Murphy's Law originally referred to a certain person, and now is referring to all people? No. That it originally said that when a person could screw up, he/she would, but now is taken as referring to simply bad luck? Not quite. It had the same wording then as it does now -- "Anything that can go wrong will." | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 2076 Registered: 4-2010 |
Was Murphy's Law originally referring to a specific incident? To human error? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3325 Registered: 5-2003 |
Was Murphy's Law originally referring to a specific incident? No, though it was developed during an actual engineering project. To human error? No. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 2078 Registered: 4-2010 |
Is it that the law originally referred to harmful error, rather than harmless? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3327 Registered: 5-2003 |
Is it that the law originally referred to harmful error, rather than harmless? Something like that, though I wouldn't call it harmless now. You are on the right track, though. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 2085 Registered: 4-2010 |
Is danger relevant? Is it that the bad luck would put others in danger, rather than being a minor inconvenience? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3330 Registered: 5-2003 |
Is danger relevant? No. Is it that the bad luck would put others in danger, rather than being a minor inconvenience? No, though sometimes this does happen. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 2575 Registered: 9-2009 |
Is the scrund about the origin of the supposed bad luck? Is the scrund that the law means "the universe conspires against you", when it's supposed to mean something else? Is Murphy's law used in different situations now, because of the scrund, than it was initially? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3346 Registered: 5-2003 |
Is the scrund about the origin of the supposed bad luck? No. Is the scrund that the law means "the universe conspires against you", when it's supposed to mean something else? Yes. Is Murphy's law used in different situations now, because of the scrund, than it was initially? Yes. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 2238 Registered: 4-2010 |
Was it supposed to mean "people, given a situation where they can do the correct or incorrect thing, will do the latter"? Did the origin of Murphy's Law involve people? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3349 Registered: 5-2003 |
Was it supposed to mean "people, given a situation where they can do the correct or incorrect thing, will do the latter"? No. Did the origin of Murphy's Law involve people? In a sense. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 2245 Registered: 4-2010 |
Is the specific situation important? Did the law originally have a similar (but not exactly the same) meaning? The opposite? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3351 Registered: 5-2003 |
Is the specific situation important? The general situation. Did the law originally have a similar (but not exactly the same) meaning? Related. The opposite? In a sense. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 2253 Registered: 4-2010 |
Did Murphy Original refer to the universe? Conspiring? Against? The speaker? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3353 Registered: 5-2003 |
Did Murphy Original refer to the universe? No. Conspiring? No. Against? No. The speaker? The speaker is relevant. | ||
| Biograd (Biograd)
New member Username: Biograd Post Number: 901 Registered: 6-2008 |
Did the original law state that anything that can go wrong with an engineered product in real life, will also go wrong during the testing phase (or some other phase of development)? so the law points to the ability to foresee things going wrong, whereas the current understanding implies that situations are maximally UNforeseeable? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3360 Registered: 5-2003 |
Did the original law state that anything that can go wrong with an engineered product in real life, will also go wrong during the testing phase (or some other phase of development)? No, but you're on the right track. so the law points to the ability to foresee things going wrong, whereas the current understanding implies that situations are maximally UNforeseeable? No. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 2364 Registered: 4-2010 |
Was the speaker an engineer? Now that I think about it, I seem to recall that the original situation involved a part put in backwards (because there was no prevention against it), and that put someone in danger undergoing a dangerous test - is this correct? Relevant? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3362 Registered: 5-2003 |
Was the speaker an engineer? Yes (and his name was Murphy). Now that I think about it, I seem to recall that the original situation involved a part put in backwards (because there was no prevention against it), and that put someone in danger undergoing a dangerous test - is this correct? I don't remember. Relevant? Possibly! Assume yes if you like. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 2372 Registered: 4-2010 |
Did the original law specifically refer to engineering? To products? To disasters? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3363 Registered: 5-2003 |
Did the original law specifically refer to engineering? Yes. To products? Yes. To disasters? Not directly. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 2375 Registered: 4-2010 |
Was the law about product flaws? Potential disasters? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3365 Registered: 5-2003 |
Was the law about product flaws? Yesish. Potential disasters? Yes. | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 2377 Registered: 4-2010 |
Was it that if a product has a way that it will be used properly, but an equally possible way that it can cause a disaster, it will always be the latter? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3367 Registered: 5-2003 |
Was it that if a product has a way that it will be used properly, but an equally possible way that it can cause a disaster, it will always be the latter? No. That's pretty much the gist of the current meaning... | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 2650 Registered: 9-2009 |
Was it that if a product has a way that it will be used properly, but an equally possible way that it can cause a disaster, sooner or later someone will use it in a way that causes disaster? That if something can be done incorrectly, sooner or later someone will do it? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3371 Registered: 5-2003 |
Was it that if a product has a way that it will be used properly, but an equally possible way that it can cause a disaster, sooner or later someone will use it in a way that causes disaster? That if something can be done incorrectly, sooner or later someone will do it? Neither. Again, that's on the track of the current meaning. You're looking for the original. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 2655 Registered: 9-2009 |
Does the law refer to product: design? Manufacture? Use? Idiot proofing? Failure modes? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3374 Registered: 5-2003 |
Does the law refer to product: design? Manufacture? Use? Idiot proofing? All, but primarily this. Failure modes? | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 2409 Registered: 4-2010 |
Does it involve making sure that there's no way a person can screw up the use of a product, by instituting a design so that the error is not possible? | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 3377 Registered: 5-2003 |
Does it involve making sure that there's no way a person can screw up the use of a product, by instituting a design so that the error is not possible? Yes. ************* Lucky Spoiler ************* Murphy's Law was initially a caution for engineers. Not an exasperated joke, but a serious warning that "whatever can go wrong will." While this reminded designers of the likelihood that their products would break under use, the intention was that they would prepare for that eventuality. The result was that engineers would look for ways in which their product might break down, then overdesign the appropriate components in order to prevent the breakdown. The inventor of Murphy's Law was disgruntled when his rule was taken as a joke, because he meant it very seriously. |
