From: Alerta Redsegura (alertaredsegura.com)
Date: Mon May 10 2004 - 14:12:50 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Michal Zalewski wrote:

> If we must toy with bogus marketspeak "equations", shouldn't E - at the
> very least - numerically correspond to the consequences (loss?) caused by
> an event, rather than being an event itself?
>
> Otherwise, my risk R of getting a bar of chocolate from a stranger is
> 0.001 * getting_chocolate_bar_from_stranger.
>

In Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA), E indeed is a numerical representation
of the consequences of the event.

I wouldn`t say these are "bogus marketspeak equations".
Risk Analysis methods rely on mathematical models starting from this
fundamental equation, adapted to each particular application or analysis.
RA is used in all fields and in some of them it is critical: the insurance
industry, for instance.

In your example, if a stranger gives you a chocolate bar, it is going to be
a loss for you? On the contrary, you may "gain" weight! :)

Iñigo Koch
Red Segura

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]