Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sjuvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!allegra!sjuvax!bbanerje From: bbanerje@sjuvax.UUCP (B. Banerjee) Newsgroups: net.flame,net.legal Subject: Jurisprudence and Science Message-ID: <750@sjuvax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 22-Dec-84 00:51:29 EST Article-I.D.: sjuvax.750 Posted: Sat Dec 22 00:51:29 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 23-Dec-84 08:03:00 EST Distribution: net Organization: Saint Josephs Univ. Phila., Pa. Lines: 28 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.