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.