On 9/29/2010 4:09 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > This isn't particularly surprising to me. I've always believed there is > a significantly higher value for 1st party signing compared to 3rd > party. The value proposition has always seemed to be much more > compelling to me.
You automatically jump to the conclusion that a dominance in a statistic means higher importance. There are far more people who are in the "average" range of intelligence than there are who have an IQ over 140. Are the people with higher IQs less important? In an average audience of 100, I usually found that roughly 3 people had had their house broken into. Since breakins are so rare, does this mean that locking your door really isn't necessary? (The other side of that question is that burglars seem to be able to get into a house if they wish, and does this mean that locking your door really isn't effective?) The nature of statistical analysis inherently constraints their actual meaning. Let's be careful not to go outside those constraints. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
