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 (ka...@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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part