>Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 14:03:08 -0400
>From: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb at jmu.edu>
>Subject: Re: Not so silly
>
>
>Adam,
> You consider that tale that NIMA made a map
>from satellite imagery that had no addresses on
>it and that then used a 1992 database to supply
>the addresses "improbable," especially in an
>environment of bureaucratic restructing and
>interagency rivalry and competition. This sounds
>very probable to me. All too probable and scary.
>Barkley Rosser
>- -----Original Message-----
>From: Adam Souzis <adam at souzis.com>
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Date: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 5:30 PM
>Subject: Re: Not so silly
>
>
>
>>>>> "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb at jmu.edu> 05/11/99 01:48PM >>
>>> BTW, for those who come up with half-baked probability
>>>calculations and then declare that this could not have been
>>>a mistake, I would remind you that the chances of the Three
>>>Mile Island accident happening were supposedly something
>>>like one-in-ten billion.
>>
>>Of course my "calculations" were half-baked -- I was merely illustrating
>>just how very bad the luck was. There are VERY few people in the world
>>that have access the actual facts of what happened -- everyone else, we're
>>all just idly speculating. But do you really believe this event wasn't
>>very bad luck if it was an accident? So sure, improbable things happen,
>>but an improbable explanation is an improbable explanation. If you find
>>every other explanation even more improbable, than go with that one. But
>>don't dismiss other explanations as "silly" if the only explanation you got
>>is improbable.
>>
>>-- adam
>>