I would actually be seriously concerned about this. There are a whole lot of things not being considered and I'm thinking it'll be pretty easy, because of missing data, for the software to say, "A fire here will be a cake walk to control" when in actuality, it'll be MUCH worse.
What data am I talking about? It's already been proven that the ground cover overgrowth has been a really big reason why some of the fires have been so horrible. Do you really thing that a satellite is going to be able to correctly assess that factor through the dense canopy of a long established forest? How about dryness of that overgrowth. Can you measure that through the canopy? What else are they missing.
My recommendation would be to NOT trust this until it's proven that it doesn't make mistakes, regardless of reason or use (manpower predictions or proactively checking for places that need some thinning and other care).
is pronounced "ree-bar
" and is a "Modenism
" for R
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.
"Change is inevitable... change for the better is not".
"Dear Lord... I'm a DBA so please give me patience because, if you give me strength, I'm going to need bail money too!"
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)