Re: [fw-wiz] Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints]

From: Christopher Hicks (chicks_at_chicks.net)
Date: 09/02/04

  • Next message: Tina Bird: "RE: [fw-wiz] Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints]" 
    To: "Marcus J. Ranum" <mjr@ranum.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:49:41 -0400 (EDT)

    On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
    > Paul D. Robertson wrote:
    >> I've often used the results of non-randomized, non-blinded surveys to
    >> approximate my risk. It's often worked well. Just because it can go
    >> wrong doesn't mean it has to.
    >
    > People used the theory that Earth was in the center of the solar
    > system for thousands of years. It often worked well. Just because
    > it was wrong didn't really matter a whole lot, either, until they
    > started trying to use that theory for actual problem-solving
    > instead of just painting cool stuff on temple walls.

    Err, no mjr. You've overstepped your own logical position a wee bit here,
    not to mention human history. People did plenty of problem solving while
    thinking the world was flat. We had ships navigating in the open seas and
    oceans for hundreds of years before we progressed to the next better
    approximation. Just because some people's "good enough" seems a bit weak
    to us doesn't make their good enough bad. We just have to show that it's
    ultimately easier to do it "right" if it is easier...

    > When "doing it right" is just a small amount harder than "doing
    > it wrong" the excuse "I like doing it wrong" is really, really weak.

    Doing a blind or double blind study is certainly important for science,
    medicine and other areas where ultimate accuracy is required. Does that
    mean its wrong when people accept a lesser approximation? In terms of
    business it may not be worth the money to have the scientifically correct
    answer. A lot of decisions are made by a show of hands by a bunch of
    suits around a conference table. That doesn't tend to be remotely
    scientific (not to mention rational, but that's getting us further off
    topic...) 

    -- 
</chris>
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make 
it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way 
is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
  -- C.A.R. Hoare
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
  • Next message: Tina Bird: "RE: [fw-wiz] Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints]"