[oclug] Linux kernel development loses BitKeeper

[Brad Barnett]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:03:24 -0400
miden <miden at travel-net.com> wrote:


> -snip-
> > There are many cases of products that take decades of use, before
> > people  notice the subtle and devastating effects they have.
> 
> True. But this raises a very real quandary - do you ban everything that 
> can't be proven to not have long-term effects (which means everything) 
> and if you do how do you prove that they do or do not have long term 
> effects (on human beings).
> 
> I for one don't want to see development freeze-framed to the present. I 
> would, however, like to see much, much more caution in the approval
> process.

Yes. 

As well, we can bring up DDT again, and consider how dangerous a mistake
can be.  We caused several species to become extinct as a direct result of
that mistake, and are still striving to save others.

On a side note, there are fruit flies that can now ingest and use DDT as a
source of energy.

However, perhaps a good rule would be to weight that cost / benefit. 
Obviously if people are dying of a plague, you do you best in that
circumstance.  The same for many medications.  Food shortages can be
a worrisome thing as well.

One thing is for certain.  The approval process needs to take into account
the benefit to society (or lack of), before approving drugs or chemicals
in any form.  Look at rBGH.  A useless, and deadly drug.. that has done
nothing but cause harm.