6 ms·

1) they were on a military explosives test ground and firing range. implying that they were in someone's back yard is a bit disingenuous when i'm sure more da

by noodle 15y ago

1) they were on a military explosives test ground and firing range. implying that they were in someone's back yard is a bit disingenuous when i'm sure more dangerous things are regularly tested there. 2) i rather suspect that they were pointing it exactly where they were told to point it by the officials and experts, as has been the case with pretty much everything they do on that range. it sucks that this happened, everyone's lucky that no one was hurt. but i largely suspect they weren't shooting from the hip about it. the firing range must've had officials to oversee it. their insurance company regularly oversees all stunts. and the crew of the show are straight up experienced professionals, regardless of how it comes off on tv.

ajross 15y ago
Then why haven't the more dangerous things wrecked houses too? I'm stunned at the level of apology going on here ("it sucks that this happened [...] but" -- seriously?). I like the show too, but people: they put a deadly projectile through someone's house. That's just not acceptable under any circumstances, no matter how many rules were followed nor precautions taken. Someone screwed up badly here. That stunt should never have happened where it did. Does anyone seriously disagree?
- johnjhayes 15y ago
  "That stunt should never have happened where it did" yep, they really should have picked a better location, like a military firing range ....
  - ajross 15y ago
    Argument by appeal to authority. If you can hit a residential neighborhood from the firing range, it's not safe. Or it's not being used safely. You seriously disagree?
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      Appealing to authorities is probably the best thing to do if you are playing with explosives. They did this, and it didn't quite pan out right. Shit happens. "You seriously disagree?" Yes, stop asking.
- noodle 15y ago
  They have. http://www.kcra.com/r/19016582/detail.html http://www.kcra.com/r/19016582/detail.html As I mentioned in another post on this page, this isn't the first time that stuff happening on this range has had an effect on the town that surrounds it. This is just the first one to have potentially serious consequences [that has involved the Mythbusters].
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  Sometimes, in the real world, shit happens. Yes, a cannonball going through some houses should not happen. No, that does not automatically mean that somebody "screwed up badly".
  - maxerickson 15y ago
    The ballistics of a cannon are well understood. That makes the potential trajectories of the projectile quite predictable. Someone chose to try to manage the trajectory instead of finding a location where every trajectory would be safe for bystanders. In the context of filming a television program, that seems like a big mistake.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      If the operators of a military firing range got that wrong, then I find it hard to believe that anybody could have realistically been expected to get it right.
      - maxerickson 15y ago
        "Bystanders" is probably the wrong word. I meant people not participating in the filming. The failure in the stunt was that the cannon fired at an unexpected angle and the ball did not embed in the berm as they expected. If they had chosen a location where a ball fired at maximum velocity and at the worst case angle could not hit a person, that failure would have any negative consequences. So (I think) it was reckless to try to manage the trajectories at a less safe location.
  - robotresearcher 15y ago
    Someone made a judgement call that was wrong, about a potentially deadly experiment. That's a bad screw up. Screwing up doesn't mean you did it on purpose, but that you failed in your responsibilities. Like here.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
- nknight 15y ago
  "They crashed a plane into someone's house. They should never have been flying where they were." Shit happens. Life is not safe. Get used to it.
  - ajross 15y ago
    That is stunningly terrible risk analysis; I really hope you don't work in IT anywhere near an operations role (or write software with anything but trivial failure costs). Society can weigh the value of air travel against the risk of an accident and make a decision that it's worthwhile. It has, and found it so. People don't simply throw airplanes into the sky and say "shit happens" when they crash. This was a cannonball stunt. Surely that changes the calculus about "worthwhile" risk a little, no? (And in any case, even looking objectively at the risk of mishaps of the few thousand Mythbusters vs. uncounted millions of airplane flights, I know which party I'd trust to do better risk analysis.)
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      Expecting everybody to match the risk/reward ratio of the aviation industry is absurd. There are few things that I am aware of that can do that.
    - nknight 15y ago
      On the contrary, I am an experienced systems operations engineer, and know only too well how badly excessive and/or misdirected risk mitigation costs companies. I have never been accused of being too reckless, however. Developers I've worked with would be happy to relate what a pain in the ass I was about thorough testing and documentation of behavior and risks.
      - ajross 15y ago
        I don't know how to square those statements with reading about a cannonball going through someone's house for no better reason than making a mildly amusing TV show and telling the owners "shit happens".
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
maxerickson 15y ago
I don't think I implied they were in someone's backyard. It is self-explanatory that they were at least close enough to the houses to hit them with their cannon (even after a bounce off the ground). I don't think it is extreme to argue that is too close (especially for something like entertainment where it simply isn't necessary to expose other people to risk). I do think the range screwed up the most, I'm sure they knew the maximum range of the cannon and took steps to limit the possible trajectories of the cannon. But when I say they were reckless, I'm looking at what actually happened, not at their intent.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  Reckless is generally seen to be a description of actions, and not consequences.
  - maxerickson 15y ago
    I already said much the same in another reply to you, but they could have predicted the worst case trajectories of the cannon and chosen a location where that did not include houses. Not doing that was what I see as reckless.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      I am taking exception to this line: "when I say they were reckless, I'm looking at what actually happened, not at their intent."
      - maxerickson 15y ago
        Right. To me it is self-evident that shooting a cannon and (unintentionally) hitting a house is a reckless action. I said intent because noodle listed all the things they did do to be safe and ignored the part of my comment where I point out that they (apparently) did not choose a particularly isolated location (if the range is near where Google maps shows Camp Parks, it is a few thousand feet from neighborhoods).
VladRussian 15y ago
>1) they were on a military explosives test ground and firing range. implying that they were in someone's back yard is a bit disingenuous your point seems to be moot as this military explosives test ground and firing range happens to be located pretty much in the back yard of these homes. >when i'm sure more dangerous things are regularly tested there. either dumb luck or much better trained and/or smarter professionals doing the testing. (btw, i lived close to 2 military shooting ranges [ one for guns like AK-47 and another is the tank range ] and there is a world of difference between how military and civilians handle the weapons, i mean skill-wise, though even military do have mishaps )

by noodle 15y ago

ajross 15y ago

Then why haven't the more dangerous things wrecked houses too? I'm stunned at the level of apology going on here ("it sucks that this happened [...] but" -- seriously?). I like the show too, but people: they put a deadly projectile through someone's house. That's just not acceptable under any circumstances, no matter how many rules were followed nor precautions taken. Someone screwed up badly here. That stunt should never have happened where it did. Does anyone seriously disagree?

johnjhayes 15y ago
"That stunt should never have happened where it did" yep, they really should have picked a better location, like a military firing range ....
- ajross 15y ago
  Argument by appeal to authority. If you can hit a residential neighborhood from the firing range, it's not safe. Or it's not being used safely. You seriously disagree?
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    Appealing to authorities is probably the best thing to do if you are playing with explosives. They did this, and it didn't quite pan out right. Shit happens. "You seriously disagree?" Yes, stop asking.
noodle 15y ago
They have. http://www.kcra.com/r/19016582/detail.html http://www.kcra.com/r/19016582/detail.html As I mentioned in another post on this page, this isn't the first time that stuff happening on this range has had an effect on the town that surrounds it. This is just the first one to have potentially serious consequences [that has involved the Mythbusters].
burgerbrain 15y ago
Sometimes, in the real world, shit happens. Yes, a cannonball going through some houses should not happen. No, that does not automatically mean that somebody "screwed up badly".
- maxerickson 15y ago
  The ballistics of a cannon are well understood. That makes the potential trajectories of the projectile quite predictable. Someone chose to try to manage the trajectory instead of finding a location where every trajectory would be safe for bystanders. In the context of filming a television program, that seems like a big mistake.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    If the operators of a military firing range got that wrong, then I find it hard to believe that anybody could have realistically been expected to get it right.
    - maxerickson 15y ago
      "Bystanders" is probably the wrong word. I meant people not participating in the filming. The failure in the stunt was that the cannon fired at an unexpected angle and the ball did not embed in the berm as they expected. If they had chosen a location where a ball fired at maximum velocity and at the worst case angle could not hit a person, that failure would have any negative consequences. So (I think) it was reckless to try to manage the trajectories at a less safe location.
- robotresearcher 15y ago
  Someone made a judgement call that was wrong, about a potentially deadly experiment. That's a bad screw up. Screwing up doesn't mean you did it on purpose, but that you failed in your responsibilities. Like here.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
nknight 15y ago
"They crashed a plane into someone's house. They should never have been flying where they were." Shit happens. Life is not safe. Get used to it.
- ajross 15y ago
  That is stunningly terrible risk analysis; I really hope you don't work in IT anywhere near an operations role (or write software with anything but trivial failure costs). Society can weigh the value of air travel against the risk of an accident and make a decision that it's worthwhile. It has, and found it so. People don't simply throw airplanes into the sky and say "shit happens" when they crash. This was a cannonball stunt. Surely that changes the calculus about "worthwhile" risk a little, no? (And in any case, even looking objectively at the risk of mishaps of the few thousand Mythbusters vs. uncounted millions of airplane flights, I know which party I'd trust to do better risk analysis.)
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    Expecting everybody to match the risk/reward ratio of the aviation industry is absurd. There are few things that I am aware of that can do that.
  - nknight 15y ago
    On the contrary, I am an experienced systems operations engineer, and know only too well how badly excessive and/or misdirected risk mitigation costs companies. I have never been accused of being too reckless, however. Developers I've worked with would be happy to relate what a pain in the ass I was about thorough testing and documentation of behavior and risks.
    - ajross 15y ago
      I don't know how to square those statements with reading about a cannonball going through someone's house for no better reason than making a mildly amusing TV show and telling the owners "shit happens".
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

maxerickson 15y ago

I don't think I implied they were in someone's backyard. It is self-explanatory that they were at least close enough to the houses to hit them with their cannon (even after a bounce off the ground). I don't think it is extreme to argue that is too close (especially for something like entertainment where it simply isn't necessary to expose other people to risk). I do think the range screwed up the most, I'm sure they knew the maximum range of the cannon and took steps to limit the possible trajectories of the cannon. But when I say they were reckless, I'm looking at what actually happened, not at their intent.

burgerbrain 15y ago
Reckless is generally seen to be a description of actions, and not consequences.
- maxerickson 15y ago
  I already said much the same in another reply to you, but they could have predicted the worst case trajectories of the cannon and chosen a location where that did not include houses. Not doing that was what I see as reckless.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    I am taking exception to this line: "when I say they were reckless, I'm looking at what actually happened, not at their intent."
    - maxerickson 15y ago
      Right. To me it is self-evident that shooting a cannon and (unintentionally) hitting a house is a reckless action. I said intent because noodle listed all the things they did do to be safe and ignored the part of my comment where I point out that they (apparently) did not choose a particularly isolated location (if the range is near where Google maps shows Camp Parks, it is a few thousand feet from neighborhoods).

VladRussian 15y ago

>1) they were on a military explosives test ground and firing range. implying that they were in someone's back yard is a bit disingenuous your point seems to be moot as this military explosives test ground and firing range happens to be located pretty much in the back yard of these homes. >when i'm sure more dangerous things are regularly tested there. either dumb luck or much better trained and/or smarter professionals doing the testing. (btw, i lived close to 2 military shooting ranges [ one for guns like AK-47 and another is the tank range ] and there is a world of difference between how military and civilians handle the weapons, i mean skill-wise, though even military do have mishaps )