List of Inventors Killed By Their Own Inventions(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
List of Inventors Killed By Their Own Inventions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventors_killed_by_their_own_inventions
65 comments
cranks with axes to grind
Every wikipedia critic I know used to be a huge wikipedia fan until something they deeply cared about was either screwed up, vandalized, or deleted.
I bet one internet cookie that if/when this happens to you, you will be as passionately anti-wikipedia as you are now pro-wikipedia.
Every wikipedia critic I know used to be a huge wikipedia fan until something they deeply cared about was either screwed up, vandalized, or deleted.
I bet one internet cookie that if/when this happens to you, you will be as passionately anti-wikipedia as you are now pro-wikipedia.
This seems odd: I don't know any person who is a directly anti-wikipedia, but I do know several people who are against wikipedia. They don't active talk bad about it, but they're the type of people who say "You can believe anything written on there, it was just written by people". Due to the ease of editing, they feel that it means nothing is fact-checked.
On the other hand, I know one of the administrators there, and he has shown me several pages of the hate-mongering he gets, mostly for just being an admin. Some of it has merit (for example, a good chunk of it was because of one particular article he moderated, and the side that lost did not lose gracefully), but most of it is just people jumping on him because they feel they are being denied their right to, well, write.
I rarely see any well thought out, cohesive arguments for re-structuring wikipedia. Most of what I see is little more than "I hate that admin, he said I wasn't notable enough for a page. Lets go egg his house!"
On the other hand, I know one of the administrators there, and he has shown me several pages of the hate-mongering he gets, mostly for just being an admin. Some of it has merit (for example, a good chunk of it was because of one particular article he moderated, and the side that lost did not lose gracefully), but most of it is just people jumping on him because they feel they are being denied their right to, well, write.
I rarely see any well thought out, cohesive arguments for re-structuring wikipedia. Most of what I see is little more than "I hate that admin, he said I wasn't notable enough for a page. Lets go egg his house!"
I rarely see any well thought out, cohesive arguments for re-structuring wikipedia.
I see no reason for an internet encyclopedia to copy the shortcomings of a paper encyclopedia as closely as wikipedia does.
Paper and shelf space are expensive and limited, you have to limit the articles and the article size.
On the other hand, HD space is cheap and text small and easily greatly compressed.
Searching in paper is hard. Searching on a computer is easy. There's no reason to have one article be THE article. Articles could be write only, unmodifiable, and search-able by their contents, their ranking by the general public, their ranking by a group of experts, their ranking of any selected group, by the hash of their text, etc.
There could be some built in redundancy, like a short encyclopedia style article on top of an incredibly deep Ph.D level dissertation article.
In short, I find wikipedia cludgy and inexplicably mimicking the short comings of paper.
I see no reason for an internet encyclopedia to copy the shortcomings of a paper encyclopedia as closely as wikipedia does.
Paper and shelf space are expensive and limited, you have to limit the articles and the article size.
On the other hand, HD space is cheap and text small and easily greatly compressed.
Searching in paper is hard. Searching on a computer is easy. There's no reason to have one article be THE article. Articles could be write only, unmodifiable, and search-able by their contents, their ranking by the general public, their ranking by a group of experts, their ranking of any selected group, by the hash of their text, etc.
There could be some built in redundancy, like a short encyclopedia style article on top of an incredibly deep Ph.D level dissertation article.
In short, I find wikipedia cludgy and inexplicably mimicking the short comings of paper.
> I rarely see any well thought out, cohesive arguments for re-structuring wikipedia.
Yes, there are a few (such as the examples to improve citizendium). The first would be to remove anonymity. If the editors are know it would improve quality and would help to bring in specialists from fields.
Currently WP is now a vehicle for anonymous slander. Lies simply get repeated. Things do not have to be true – it just have to be on another website.
Yes, there are a few (such as the examples to improve citizendium). The first would be to remove anonymity. If the editors are know it would improve quality and would help to bring in specialists from fields.
Currently WP is now a vehicle for anonymous slander. Lies simply get repeated. Things do not have to be true – it just have to be on another website.
Coincidentally it's just past the three-year anniversary of the first attempt to delete the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion...
Back then it could still be saved by tons of people saying WP:ILIKEIT. But if it wasn't for the fact that some 19th-century writer had the idea of compiling the exact same kind of list, the thing would probably be deleted under today's standards.
Back then it could still be saved by tons of people saying WP:ILIKEIT. But if it wasn't for the fact that some 19th-century writer had the idea of compiling the exact same kind of list, the thing would probably be deleted under today's standards.
I've gone the opposite route. At first, I was skeptical. But it has become an invaluable resource especially in areas not covered by traditional encyclopedias (e.g. popular culture).
Very so. As a lifelong rock and film fan, it's WP schoolin' me alla time. Cuz, as Mark Twain put it: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
I just wish more people realized this with donations to the Wikimedia foundation.
I just wish Wikipedia would find a self-sustaining model that didn't rely on perpetual annual donations. I'm not proposing a for-profit company, but I am proposing finding a non-compromising way to make just enough revenue to keep it going sustainably while remaining neutral.
PS I donated to Wikimedia last year, so I'm willing to contribute until the project finds a more sustainable model.
PS I donated to Wikimedia last year, so I'm willing to contribute until the project finds a more sustainable model.
I am proposing finding a non-compromising way to make just enough revenue to keep it going sustainably while remaining neutral.
Monetization, non-compromosing and neutral have trouble playing nice with each other.
Monetization, non-compromosing and neutral have trouble playing nice with each other.
I knew of one non-profit that lived off interest, basically. For every million dollars they raise, they can afford to hire one more worker or do X more things, based off the interest that money makes sitting in a bank.
It seems like a good way to go, if you can just raise the millions needed. Maybe some billionaire can set Wikipedia up with a trust fund...
It seems like a good way to go, if you can just raise the millions needed. Maybe some billionaire can set Wikipedia up with a trust fund...
How do they deal with interest rate fluctuations?
You buy long term (5-10 years) CD's.
You know your expenses pretty well, so it's easy to plan it that far ahead.
Or coupon bonds, which pay interest regularly with a fixed amount and on a fixed schedule (set at purchase time for as long as 30 years).
Slightly more risky since they are not FDIC insured, but if you hold to maturity you have zero risk due to market fluctuations, only a risk of the firm going bankrupt totally.
You know your expenses pretty well, so it's easy to plan it that far ahead.
Or coupon bonds, which pay interest regularly with a fixed amount and on a fixed schedule (set at purchase time for as long as 30 years).
Slightly more risky since they are not FDIC insured, but if you hold to maturity you have zero risk due to market fluctuations, only a risk of the firm going bankrupt totally.
That would be a pretty massive trust fund to pay for all of the server space + bandwidth they need in addition to their staff
Google offered to host them for free, without ads.
They turned them down. I guess that's where the non-compromising comes in - despite google offering to be totally hands off, just free hosting.
They turned them down. I guess that's where the non-compromising comes in - despite google offering to be totally hands off, just free hosting.
"I'm not proposing a for-profit company, but I am proposing finding a non-compromising way to make just enough revenue to keep it going sustainably while remaining neutral."
If you're proposing, let's hear the proposal...
If you're proposing, let's hear the proposal...
Clearly labeled sponsored links (text ads) at the bottom of a few heavily used pages.
It's a public good and should therefore be funded by the government. Note that government funded does not mean government run.
Neutrality will suffer under that small conflict of interest
Yes, just like neutrality has suffered for PBS.
http://www.pbs.org/roperpoll2009/
Oh, wait...
"PBS remains the network with the most trusted news and public affairs programs, with 43% trusting its programs a “great deal.” CNN came in second with 28% and FOX News third at 27%."
http://www.pbs.org/roperpoll2009/
Oh, wait...
"PBS remains the network with the most trusted news and public affairs programs, with 43% trusting its programs a “great deal.” CNN came in second with 28% and FOX News third at 27%."
Wikipedia can never work, it's a socialist experiment.
;->
;->
It would only be socialist if the state ran it.
Quite right - that's one of the biggest mistakes people make thinking politically. Socialism and Communism aren't bad because they're ostensibly about sharing, cooperation, or being nice. They're bad because they're run by the government, who arrests or executes its citizens if they decline to participate in the government-run activity. If you've ever shared a refridgerator with multiple people pitching in to fill it with groceries, you've been part of a "commune" (lower case), which can be fine and great thing. It's when people aren't allowed to decline to participate in the commune without being arrested or shot that there's problems.
Yes what makes socialism/communism authoritarian is that it's almost always non-voluntary (ie they make you join the collective or else).
Exceptions to this are Kubbitzes (sp?) and small voluntary communes, which have their own problems but at least you can leave them!
Exceptions to this are Kubbitzes (sp?) and small voluntary communes, which have their own problems but at least you can leave them!
What are the total operating costs of Wikipedia? Not to bring politics into this, but with all the stuff the government funds, these seems like a prime example for bailout money.
If the government funded Wikipedia, nobody would trust its neutrality.
Yes it truly is! On par with the whole GNU movement maybe even better.
I found some amazing quotes (linked to from the article):
It is cited that the Burmese king Nanda Bayin, in 1599 "laughed to death when informed by a visiting Italian merchant that Venice was a free state without a king
London Beer Flood, 9 people were killed when 323,000 imperial gallons (1 468 000 L) of beer in the Meux and Company Brewery burst out of their vats and gushed into the streets.
incent Smith II, an employee at the Cocoa Services Inc. chocolate factory in Camden, New Jersey, was loading chunks of raw chocolate when he slipped and fell into a large melting tank filled with 120oF (50oC) chocolate, and was knocked out by one of the mixing paddles. Smith was trapped in the melting tank for 10 minutes before rescuers were able to extract him. He was declared dead a short time later.
Hmmm beer, laughter or chocolate?
I found some amazing quotes (linked to from the article):
It is cited that the Burmese king Nanda Bayin, in 1599 "laughed to death when informed by a visiting Italian merchant that Venice was a free state without a king
London Beer Flood, 9 people were killed when 323,000 imperial gallons (1 468 000 L) of beer in the Meux and Company Brewery burst out of their vats and gushed into the streets.
incent Smith II, an employee at the Cocoa Services Inc. chocolate factory in Camden, New Jersey, was loading chunks of raw chocolate when he slipped and fell into a large melting tank filled with 120oF (50oC) chocolate, and was knocked out by one of the mixing paddles. Smith was trapped in the melting tank for 10 minutes before rescuers were able to extract him. He was declared dead a short time later.
Hmmm beer, laughter or chocolate?
"Franz Reichelt (1800s – 1912), a tailor, fell to his death off the first deck of the Eiffel Tower while testing his invention, the coat parachute. It was his first ever attempt with the parachute and he had told the authorities in advance he would test it first with a dummy."
He did.
He did.
I'm having a hard time up modding you for this comment on this site.
It's not that tricky. You just click the ^
The comment is mean. It's not intellectually stimulating. I meant I don't think it belongs here. Downmod me if you like for expressing that opinion.
Phew, no computer scientists on the list.
Maybe Turing was killed by a time travelling robot he later invented?
Well, he was killed by the government he helped save from Nazi conquest.
Not quite killed by his invention, though.
Not quite killed by his invention, though.
Actually the time traveling robot's mission was to come back as a young man, known as Arnold Murray. with whom Turing would become infatuated. The purpose of this mission was an evolution of the continued misunderstanding of the philosophical nature of the Turing test and it's human centric definition of intellect. The robot's inventor figured that if he proved the robot was "at least as intelligent" as Turing by causing him to fall in love with it, it would thereby pass the Turing Test.
A similar robot was sent for Church, but he couldn't understand it's lisp.
A similar robot was sent for Church, but he couldn't understand it's lisp.
maybe you should go an read this thread ?
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=795622
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=795622
I was just making a satirical joke. I know how he was treated by the government, and I'm sorry if I caused offense. What annoys me is what he could have accomplished in the field of robotics if he hadn't been wrongly treated.
That's a question many people would like the answer to.
It's related to a funny story that goes like this:
What if Bach had died before writing the WTK, then that music would not exist today, but all of us would be totally free to come up with it. Since Bach did live to write the WTK we don't have to wonder what it would be like if it did not exist.
Now what other stuff would he have done if he had lived even longer...
The problem with such thought experiments is that even though in theory we can come up with all the music that a composer would have written had they lived several hundred years longer in practice we probably will never do that because we are not that composer.
For art this is easy enough because we readily admit to an artist bringing something unique to the table, why else would an 'original' be worth a load of money (it's uniqueness being the direct consequence of the hand of the master). For scientific things that is a lot less clear.
I'm sure plenty of stuff will be invented anyway, no matter who comes up with it the first time. But that may not be true for all scientific ideas.
It's related to a funny story that goes like this:
What if Bach had died before writing the WTK, then that music would not exist today, but all of us would be totally free to come up with it. Since Bach did live to write the WTK we don't have to wonder what it would be like if it did not exist.
Now what other stuff would he have done if he had lived even longer...
The problem with such thought experiments is that even though in theory we can come up with all the music that a composer would have written had they lived several hundred years longer in practice we probably will never do that because we are not that composer.
For art this is easy enough because we readily admit to an artist bringing something unique to the table, why else would an 'original' be worth a load of money (it's uniqueness being the direct consequence of the hand of the master). For scientific things that is a lot less clear.
I'm sure plenty of stuff will be invented anyway, no matter who comes up with it the first time. But that may not be true for all scientific ideas.
I think it is pretty obvious that if Bach lived another 10 years (or days), he would have written music that nobody would ever come up with (remember, human existence will not be infinite).
With Turing, it's entirely possible that he could have come up with a novel way of looking at things, or an invention, which we have not achieved today. Thus, even if at some point, all technical discoveries have been made that would have been made in Turing's natural lifespan, we would be much farther along at any point in time if we had those contributions, and our way of looking at our field might be richer.
With Turing, it's entirely possible that he could have come up with a novel way of looking at things, or an invention, which we have not achieved today. Thus, even if at some point, all technical discoveries have been made that would have been made in Turing's natural lifespan, we would be much farther along at any point in time if we had those contributions, and our way of looking at our field might be richer.
I think in this discussion of the Titanic, the phrase "[the design] proved to be much more sinkable than he had anticipated" is probably against some sort of wikipedia guideline. You're not supposed to be laughing...
[deleted]
Thomas Andrews (1873 – 1912) died with 1,516 others when his innovative, "unsinkable" design for the RMS Titanic proved to be much more sinkable than he had anticipated.
Seems to be a little violation of NPOV, and a very sad one at that, but I can't help but grin.
Seems to be a little violation of NPOV, and a very sad one at that, but I can't help but grin.
There are less than two dozen names. I expected the list to be longer, given the breadth of human creativity and propensity for risk taking.
Perillos of Athens and his brazen bull are prominently missing. Perhaps one of the oldest and creepiest stories of that kind.
According to Wikipedia (haha), he was tortured in his device, but it didn't actually kill him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull
Oh, OK. It's been a while since I read that story.
No robotics section yet...
There is one very important difference between what can be built as an experiment and the commercial Segway: The commercial one has a lot of safety features, redundancy and fool-proofing. Mine has none whatsoever (Well, it does have a kill switch so it doesn't go zooming away if I fall off, and it does shut down if it finds itself tipped more than 45 degrees.) Those details are kind of important, and you should think about them carefully before considering building such a thing yourself. With a scooter like this, if it stops working for any reason (software crash, hardware failure, low battery) you will fall, hard, and probably on your face. Imagine zipping along at 10 MPH, and suddenly the platform you're standing on stops dead. Oh, and there's a T-bar in front of you to trip you up if you start to run. So you really shouldn't try to replicate this experiment, and I can't be responsible for what happens if you read this and try to build something.
[deleted]
Percy Pilcher, English aviation pioneer died flying a waterlogged glider when potential investors had been invited to watch.
Talk about a bad demo day ...
Talk about a bad demo day ...
Hoisted by one's own petard...
Reading this, I kept stumbling over typos and awkward sentence constructions. The content was interesting, but I feel like the writing was much worse than your average Wikipedia article. I wonder why.
Thomas Midgley, Jr. seems like the most unfortunate.
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
I was going to write "For all its faults..." but I suddenly realised that Wikipedia has never been anything less than fantastic in anything I've experienced. All the bad stuff has been related to me 3rd hand and the vast majority of it seemed to be coming from cranks with axes to grind.
I'm saddened that it isn't celebrated more, but take solace in the fact that it has, fairly quietly considering, become a fundamental part of the internet and our society.