At 12:11 PM 8/12/97 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear All
>I've left the copied body in for a reason.. Mike (perth) I believe you are
>quite wrong to splash so much bile across Glenns' comments.

Fine. The reason I was taken aback by his suggestion of "unscientific stupidy"
is that these sorts of formulas separate the human factor - we can all do
better to reduce risk - especially for the innocent, like our Children.

> The purpose of
>the threat formula is to aid in project and product planning in terms of
>risk to the project and the likely cost of alternative/extra action required
>to rectify in terms of time and capital. In such a context the formula is
>very valuable if simplistic.

How can it be valuable other than as a philosphical issue during debate,
one cannot ascribe numerics and expect them to have any practical basis or
how that influences me as to whether I link my smoke detector to a relay
that turns off the mains power - can you show me that ????????????????????

I have personal experiences of these formulas used as a substitute for
plain good thinking and the way these formulas are manipulated to save a
few pennies so the Director can get a new Jacusi is in so many respects
criminal.

> A good manager will have an idea of the
>relative weights of the RISK factor and possibly a good idea of the Harm
>factor but it is still imprecise and subjective and is thus not a rigorous
>rule.

Can your 'good manager' apply the numerics and make sense of them in any
human context and in any practical context - please supply example ?

> Your example of a plane crash is facile in this context.

No. In the general context you will see most plane crashes are caused by
accidents that could easily have been avoided had there been just a little
more care and a little more expense. Take the most recent ones; TWA in
USA - explosion of centre fuel tank (Why in the hell don't boeing use
inert gas purge - this is fundamental), Jumbo at Guam - failed navigation
and pilot assumptions, USA - cargo plane badly loaded/steep climb etc

>Please feel free to pick up any bok on project management, particularly
>software and teher it is in all its glory. (..or infamy) So in a way this is
>directly related to PIC projects

Hey - I've been through lots of books and find so much academic rubbish
that is so far removed from the human element, just because its a book
does not mean its passed any sort of critical analysis process. I have been
an academic myself back in 1980-84 (thereabouts) and operated my own
business since 1978 and have been exposed to so much dangerous thinking
by people who have been in their comfort zones and never taken responsibility
for the consequences of their actions.

I am dissapointed that in this modern age there is still so much dogma
and faith and wishful thinking. There are so many invalid presumptions
about the reliability of equipment thats its staggering.

Just because systems 'look like' they don't fail doesn't mean they don't
or that we should not take care. Remember this thread started in respect
of unattended operation of PC equipment using SMPSU.

Rgds

Mike
Perth, Western Australia