I severely doubt that anecdote. See for yourself: http://books.google.ca/books?id=8jZBksh-bUMC&lpg=PP1&dq=artificial%20intelligence%20a%20modern%20approach&pg

I severely doubt that anecdote. See for yourself: http://books.google.ca/books?id=8jZBksh-bUMC&lpg=PP1&dq=artificial%20intelligence%20a%20modern%20approach&pg=PA615#v=onepage&q=outraged&f=false http://books.google.ca/books?id=8jZBksh-bUMC&lpg=PP1&#38... I had cited it from memory. It wasn't paint; it was asbestos. Nearly every government decision (e.g. where to build roads) involves calculations that put a value on human life, never mind the more obvious ones about what drugs to provide via socialized medical services. Great, though my point still stands that scientists are often the only people who can grasp a particular issue, and should perhaps consider advocating it.