> 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. 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? Best Regards, Nathan Eisenberg
