On 21 Jun 2002, at 1:30, David Weinshenker wrote:
> Hmmm... doctors say that you should not subject a patient to tests which
> will have no benefit in makeing treatment decisions; and that's a fairly
> sensible position.
Sensible if they can be _sure_ the tests will have no benefit. This
may be true in many, perhaps most cases. But, as a blanket
prohibition, it presupposes that every diagnosis is infallible. That, clearly,
is ludicrous. But I'm getting off-topic...
> Programmers have been known to say, "Never test for an
> error condition that you're not prepared to handle." - that has a certain
> ironic fatalism to it... it may do you no good to see it coming, if it's too
> late (or if you don't have the means) to duck.
>
This, at bottom, is the same argument that some SDI opponents
used: If the system can't stop 100% of incoming ICBMs, it shouldn't be
deployed.
Personally, I'd want to know about every impactor -- no matter how
short the advance notice. Even in the worst possible case, it would give
me time to pray, or say goodbye. With a few hours or days of warning,
many would survive who would otherwise have been lost -- as others have
pointed out.
> But then on the other hand (was this the premise of the stories you
> mention?) if you see a really big one far enough out that you've got time to
> start building a response...
>
Sure: the more warning you have, the better your survival rate -- up to
the optimum outcome, which involves a successful deflection.
Chris
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
