On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 16:19 +0000, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
If an expert stood up in court and said "the chances that this fingerprint is the defendant's are a million to one", and the prosecutor then said "Aha! So you admit it's *possible*!" we would rightly scorn the prosecutor for being an innumerate nincompoop. Yet here we are paying serious heed to the idea that a ULA prefix conflict is a real business risk.
Yes, but if this prosecutor does this a million times, he's bound to be right at least once.
Hm. Would you hire a prosecutor who was, on average, right once in a million times?
Yes, a good businessperson takes risks. They also do everything possible to mitigate those risks, such as background checks on employees, lightning rods and grounding systems and insurance on the electronics in the building, buy generators and fuel contracts or source an emergency workplace. Yes, a crazy employee may get through a background check, but if the question is the presence of an attempt and prevention, then what is the risk mitigation for ULA?
Choose a random ULA prefix. Done. Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) +61-2-64957160 (h) http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob) GPG fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156 Old fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF