Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When Carl Sagan sued Apple twice (2014)

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 69 posts

Re: When Carl Sagan sued Apple twice (2014)

#51

Post by NateEag »

kloch wrote: post #49

> One does not seriously attack the expertise of a scientist using the undefined phrase "butt-head." But one does seriously attack the expertise of a scientist using the undefined phrases "crackpot" or "crank", which are not very far from "butt-head" So while I think the ruling was correct in that the average person would not take the insult seriously, I can see why Sagan might have taken it seriously.

IMO, "crackpot" and "crank" are quite far from "butthead".

The first two communicate precisely what you've described, and are a significant charge to level at a scientist.

The last is a playground insult, meaning only "I don't like you" or "I think you're mean."

Re: When Carl Sagan sued Apple twice (2014)

#52

Post by fastaguy88 »

I find it so interesting that most of these comments criticize Apple. For me, the article suggests that Carl Sagan deserved some of the scientific criticism he received -- that he was more of a showman than scientist. He certainly did not seem to have much of a sense of humor, a bad trait for someone with such a large but fragile ego. (If Apple had switched to TSA -- thin skinned astronomer -- rather than BHA, would he still have sued?)

The idea that his "name" was a "brand" that had some commercial value is a joke. I don't think Johnny Carson was dropping his invites because of an Apple internal code name.

Re: When Carl Sagan sued Apple twice (2014)

#53

Post by kloch »

NateEag wrote: post #51
kloch wrote: post #49

> One does not seriously attack the expertise of a scientist using the undefined phrase "butt-head." But one does seriously attack the expertise of a scientist using the undefined phrases "crackpot" or "crank", which are not very far from "butt-head" So while I think the ruling was correct in that the average person would not take the insult seriously, I can see why Sagan might have taken it seriously.

IMO, "crackpot" and "crank" are quite far from "butthead". The first two communicate precisely what you've described, and are a significant charge to level at a scientist. The last is a playground insult, meaning only "I don't like you" or "I think you're mean."

I actually agree with you there. I was just trying to imagine a scenario where it made sense from Sagan's perspective.

Re: When Carl Sagan sued Apple twice (2014)

#55

Post by vladTheInhaler »

ConstantVigil wrote: post #31
andrepd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find Neil deGrasse Tyson to be a terrible science communicator, especially since a few years back. Just look at the man's twitter. Putting him and Carl Sagan in the same sentence is almost insulting x)

Not to mention that I am fairly certain I've caught him being horribly wrong more than once. But for the life of me, I cannot seem to remember which times it was. I'm sure I'll come across those videos again sometime though, and when I do; I'll be sure to edit this comment. Knowing my luck, it will be in the next few days time.

Tyson once said on twitter “An airplane whose engine fails is a glider. A helicopter whose engine fails is a brick.” Now it's not at all obvious why that's not true. But that's why it's important to be humble about what you do and don't know.

Re: When Carl Sagan sued Apple twice (2014)

#57

Post by mrexroad »

vladTheInhaler wrote: post #55
ConstantVigil wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that I am fairly certain I've caught him being horribly wrong more than once. But for the life of me, I cannot seem to remember which times it was. I'm sure I'll come across those videos again sometime though, and when I do; I'll be sure to edit this comment. Knowing my luck, it will be in the next few days time.

Tyson once said on twitter “An airplane whose engine fails is a glider. A helicopter whose engine fails is a brick.” Now it's not at all obvious why that's not true. But that's why it's important to be humble about what you do and don't know.

In case anyone else is interested in the not-at-all-obvious-answer [1], I’ll save you the google: autorotation

> Autorotation is the ability of a helicopter to in some situations have its rotors powered by the flow of air rather than the engine. In short, as the helicopter descends, the upward directed flow of air pushes through the rotors, makes them rotate faster, which in turn provides lift.

[1] https://www.highskyflying.com/can-helicopters-glide/

Re: When Carl Sagan sued Apple twice (2014)

#58

Post by phendrenad2 »

Seems like both sides are villains here. Apple is a villain for initially refusing to release a statement saying "Carl Sagan does not endorse our product". Carl Sagan is a villain for suing when they changed the codename to "Butt-Head Astronomer".

(Aw crap, am I going to be sued by the Carl Sagan estate for calling him a "villain"?)

Re: When Carl Sagan sued Apple twice (2014)

#59

Post by mixmastamyk »

mrexroad wrote: post #57
vladTheInhaler wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tyson once said on twitter “An airplane whose engine fails is a glider. A helicopter whose engine fails is a brick.” Now it's not at all obvious why that's not true. But that's why it's important to be humble about what you do and don't know.

In case anyone else is interested in the not-at-all-obvious-answer [1], I’ll save you the google: autorotation > Autorotation is the ability of a helicopter to in some situations have its rotors powered by the flow of air rather than the engine. In short, as the helicopter descends, the upward directed flow of air pushes through the rotors, makes them rotate faster, which in turn provides lift. [1] https://www.highsk…

Still, isn’t it more likely for the occupants to survive when a plane lands without power, assuming a decent landing spot?
Post reply on HN