"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 15:20:47 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:

Surely you jest. Some company or person(s) develope a new
technology, invention, whatever...and you expect them to hold off
bringing that new whatever to market so the negative impacts to
other industries, groups, etc can first be studied?

Consider the consequemces if they don't.

I had the eyesight in one eye restored with an experimental
medication used in a very high tech procedure that was Phase 2 of a
study for FDA procedure approval. If the company that manufactured
the medication and proposed the procedure had not been required to
do Phase 1 (medication safety test) or indeed the entire approval
study first, what would have happened had the medication not proved
safe to use in the first place (permanent blindness, I was told).

In our field, consider the effects of headlong approval of BPL on
spectrum usability. Full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes.

Yes, Bill, I am 100% in favor of defining and eliminating or at least
guarding against the downsides before running off to market a la
Micro$**t Windows junk.

The discussion has been on the economic downsides (jobs lost, industries
driven out of existence), not on bonafide health, life, or illegal
interference issues.

Another example. Would you have held back on digital photography
because it is negatively impacting the print film camera industry?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK