Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (83869)	5/12/2010 3:44:05 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224769

I see your still avoiding directly answering the point. As for your analogy. Stability control is not required by law, and many people decide to go without it, despite the fact that if its done properly it can have benefits beyond just avoiding accidents. Also the effectiveness of stability control in avoiding accidents is likely much larger than the effectiveness of the acoustic backup control for the shutoff valve (in the context of already having a dead man's switch, with signal cutoff causing a shutdown, if you didn't have such a device than the acoustic backup would be far more likely to make a difference). Because you prefer to have every backup safety device available. I have stability control, but I don't prefer to have every safety device available. If I tried to have every available safety feature for cars added to my car it would greatly add to weight, complexity, and cost. Its properly a matter of weight the trade-offs, not making every possible effort that might have any impact on safety. It it was all about safety from accidents than you should stay in bed inside an armored bunker all day, but most people would find that rather impractical.