bbanerje@sjuvax.UUCP (B. Banerjee) (12/22/84)
Hi,
Just heard the news this evening. Apparently some court has ruled
against the U.S. Weather Service; holding them liable for - get this,
failure to forecast a storm in which 3 boaters lost their lives.
This is the height of stupidity. Atmospheric physics is by no means
completely understood. The forecasts are made in terms of probability,
*not* certainty. I understand (though I'm not sure of this) that some
of the problems in weather forecasting are NP hard.
This essentially displays the utter failure of the legal profession
to deal with and understand technological issues. In fact, judging
from their track record, the legal profession has problems dealing
with *any* issues not pertaining to the legal profession. As a matter
of fact, they haven't dealt with legal ethics very well either.
Well, what do you think? Do lawyers serve any useful purpose in modern
society? Is their track record pertaining to technological issues
really as abysmal as it looks?
Regards,
--
Binayak Banerjee
{allegra | astrovax | bpa | burdvax}!sjuvax!bbanerje
P.S.
Send Flames, I love mail.jlw@ariel.UUCP (J.WOOD) (12/23/84)
I was just as incensed as sjuvax!bbanerje was about the liability of the weather service until I heard later that the main problem was that the weather service had neglected to repair a weather transponding bouy that they were responsible for for three months before the accident. Perhaps we should flame the <probably> TV newscasters in Philly for not giving the <true> facts. Joseph L. Wood, III AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel (201) 834-3759 ariel!jlw
mark@elsie.UUCP (Mark J. Miller) (12/24/84)
> Hi, > > Just heard the news this evening. Apparently some court has ruled > against the U.S. Weather Service; holding them liable for - get this, > failure to forecast a storm in which 3 boaters lost their lives. > Actually, the court did not hold the USWS liable for failing to predict the storm, but, rather for failure to maintain equipment (a weather bouy, in this case) that *could* have aided in predicting the storm. -- Mark J. Miller NIH/NCI/DCE/LEC UUCP: decvax!harpo!seismo!elsie!mark Phone: (301) 496-5688
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (12/24/84)
[]
I almost agree. However, I am under the impression that the
specific focus of the lawsuit is failure to maintain some sort
of weather monitoring buoy. It is by no means clear to me that
the functioning of this buoy was as vital as the lawyers are
claiming, but if it was then it is reasonable to equate failure
to repair it with negligence.
I have this sinking feeling that as the lawsuit progresses it
will take on precisely those features that you're flaming about.
WARNING**********************************************************
The above will not be the official opinion of the University of Texas
until such time as it can be reliably ascertained by three independent
witnesses that hell has frozen over to a depth of at least 10 meters.
*****************************************************************
"Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac
Borrow money from him." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
Department of Astronomy
University of Texas
Austin, Texas 78712geb@cadre.UUCP (12/25/84)
Another example of the utter parasitism of the legal profession is the recent shortage of whooping cough vaccine. Because of the enormous settlements for the children who get post-vaccinial encephalopathy (a complication that is unavoidable and statistically predictable) no one is willing to make the vaccine unless the government will indemnify them against the suits. So how many infants will have to die? Who can they sue? Maybe there should be a class action suit against lawyers by the parents of those who die of whooping cough. It is about time that we put a stop to something that is obviously harming everyone but the few who collect on a suit and their lawyers. Notice how quick the American lawyers who went to India were to scurry back here when they realized they couldn't collect contingency fees in India.
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime) (12/31/84)
In article <750@sjuvax.UUCP> bbanerje@sjuvax.UUCP (B. Banerjee) writes: >Well, what do you think? Do lawyers serve any useful purpose in modern >society? Well, theoretically, if we could trick them into going to North Africa and gave them each a shovel, they could dig irrigation ditches for the Ethiopians. However, this will definately require force, and most of 'em are simply no good at all in hot weather, as they refuse to take off their vests. Perhaps we could put some mind-bending substances in their three martinis? Just trying to improve mankind through chemistry, Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. UUCP: {cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \ {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA
jca@abnji.UUCP (james armstrong) (01/04/85)
> Just heard the news this evening. Apparently some court has ruled > against the U.S. Weather Service; holding them liable for - get this, > failure to forecast a storm in which 3 boaters lost their lives. > > This is the height of stupidity. Atmospheric physics is by no means > completely understood. The forecasts are made in terms of probability, > *not* certainty. I understand (though I'm not sure of this) that some > of the problems in weather forecasting are NP hard. > > This essentially displays the utter failure of the legal profession > to deal with and understand technological issues. In fact, judging > from their track record, the legal profession has problems dealing > with *any* issues not pertaining to the legal profession. As a matter > of fact, they haven't dealt with legal ethics very well either. > > Well, what do you think? Do lawyers serve any useful purpose in modern > society? Is their track record pertaining to technological issues > really as abysmal as it looks? > > Regards, > > -- > Binayak Banerjee > {allegra | astrovax | bpa | burdvax}!sjuvax!bbanerje > P.S. > Send Flames, I love mail. The Weather Service lost the case not just because of the incorrect prediction, but because they were negligent in replacing an inoperative bouy. I must agree that a suit for bad predicitions is silly, and the decision was silly. How much would the National Enquirer lose if they were sued for the inaccuracies of their predictions???