rz2000

I think the current figure for actuaries is close to $3 million. If they think there is less than a 1/12 chance of killing someone, or, less than 1/60 chance of killing five people they might make the cold decision not to.

This calculus is a good way to decide things like how to prioritize which safety features on highways you will budget. It gets problematic when people make decisions about potential harm something you're responsible actively causes, rather than dangers you are minimizing through public expenditures. It is also problematic when people discover that it is cheaper to accidentally kill someone than it is to accidentally maim them and be responsible for their care the rest of their lives.

My point is that economic incentives do work, but the threat of criminal prosecution is an important part of limiting behavior by experts who know the most about their operations which puts others at risk.

Considering your aerial photography role during the war, and your iPad now, any thoughts on Google Earth? I think its great that now anyone can see what only people with their own satellites could see during the cold war.

I feel bad that this is turning into the point of interest, but were you near a river nearby, too, and was there a septic tank?

If so, why would you ever do anything else? Considering the enormous effect it would have on your quality of life, if there was intermittent water, why not get a small water tower for when it didn't run? And, considering that your mother was a biologist, too, it just sounds amazing that more time wasn't spent on a robust way to handle sewage.

Yet, there may be a few hundred million people who have disdain for her. Having 5, 10 or 15 billion dollars would help you fulfill your mission.

Does Tunisia ever enter into the conversation?