Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!bingvaxu!sunybcs!rapaport
From: rapaport@sunybcs.uucp (William J. Rapaport)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Simulation verus reality
Message-ID: <5244@cs.Buffalo.EDU>
Date: 13 Apr 89 14:47:15 GMT
References: <827@htsa.uucp> <5227@cs.Buffalo.EDU> <864@uceng.UC.EDU>
Sender: nobody@cs.Buffalo.EDU
Reply-To: rapaport@sunybcs.UUCP (William J. Rapaport)
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
Lines: 10

In article <864@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes:
>
>Why doesn't, or couldn't, a simulated hurricane get you wet? Because
>we aren't so good at simulating things yet, or because that would
>be "cheating?"

I was thinking of the sort of computer simulation of a hurricane that
the weather service might construct, not a machine that produces a
hurricane artificially.  The latter ought to get you wet; the former
wouldn't.