At 11:55 AM 8/13/97 -0400, you wrote:

>I think the point of the original poster was that brain power, common
>sense, and engineering principals should be used to determine if there is
>a realistic potential of harm to a user.
>
>The whole idea of attaching a formula to safety or threat is just a
>feel-good measurement.  The number you calculate is only a
>guideline, nothing more.
>
>An analogy: There are plenty of books and academic studies on reliability.
>Calculations can be done on MTBF and so forth, but there's more to
>reliabilty than just numbers.  Assesing criticality and providing
>redundancy are part of the process, as well as making sure parts come
>from reliable vendors and manufacturing of product is done in a careful
>manner.  I can sit and apply a calculation of MTBF on a box of parts, but
>if they aren't designed properly or manufactured well, it doesn't mean
>much.

>I could look at it another way.  By spending 12.50 and saving 2000 in
>damages, I have saved a lot of money.  2000-12.50 = 1987.5.  But the 2000
>number is hypothetical.  The fire could cause enough damage to just
>destroy the clock, OR burn down a house and kill a family.  A lot of
>variation in that Harm portion of the equation.  What Harm # would you
>apply in this case?

>I don't mean to jump on anybody's back about this.  I just felt i wanted
>to give my humble opinion :)

Very well said Rob,

Succint and to the point, good commonsense *and* redundancy...

You beat me to it, I'll send a private email to Glenn when I have the time,

Regards

Mike
Perth, Western Australia