Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
Re: Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints]
From: Christopher Hicks <chicks () chicks net>
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
Current thread:
- Re: VPN endpoints Kevin Sheldrake (Sep 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: VPN endpoints Paul D. Robertson (Sep 01)
- Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints] Marcus J. Ranum (Sep 01)
- Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints] Paul D. Robertson (Sep 01)
- Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints] Marcus J. Ranum (Sep 01)
- Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints] Paul D. Robertson (Sep 01)
- Re: Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints] Christopher Hicks (Sep 01)
- Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints] Marcus J. Ranum (Sep 01)
- Re: Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints] Bruce B. Platt (Sep 01)
- RE: Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints] Tina Bird (Sep 01)
- Re: Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints] Bruce B. Platt (Sep 01)
- RE: Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints] Tina Bird (Sep 01)
- Re: Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints] Bruce B. Platt (Sep 01)
- Wired article on the scientific method Tina Bird (Sep 01)
- Re: Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints] Paul D. Robertson (Sep 01)
- Re: Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints] Crispin Cowan (Sep 01)
- Re: Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints] Adam Shostack (Sep 03)