[CAP] Decrease milling when increase trust RE: Vol7 #2

[Henry Lahore]

>CAP alerts imply a centralized method of distribution, which is how
most emergency alerts are propagated.  For the swarm system, a separate
protocol would need to be developed, that perhaps encapsulates or
provides translation to a CAP alert instead.  
A centralized method of distribution, bases on a single source, is
fraught with errors. Very few people will quickly spend resources
(emotion, ego, gasoline, time, money, ...) based only on reception of a
single message. 

It does not matter who a centralized message is from: police, USCG,
Homeland Security, mayor, president, ...  If the message is not
confirmed/endorsed/trusted very few people will immediately react.

There are just too many reasons that a single message might not apply to
the recipient, so will not be believed until it is trusted - often by
getting confirmation from or via additional sources.  
Example causes of an erroneous message:
  Sender mis-interpreted information
        did not correctly hear the location of the disaster
        transposed the magnitude of the disaster (quake 3.7 vs. 7.3)
        mis-read the radar screen - location, magnitude, etc.
  Human error: 
        entered wrong location: center, radius, polygon end-point, ... 
        entered wrong time: transpose 5:09 and 9:05
        entered wrong type of disaster, 
        entered wrong certainty, 
        pushed wrong button
  Software or simulation error: 
        software/model was not designed for the situation
As a system designer, I became aware of the huge number and types of
errors which are possible and how a good system design can virtually
eliminate errors from humans, software, hardware, and communications.
Some examples of systems which are designed to have very very little
error include: aircraft, air traffic control, and nuclear power plants.