User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

GPL v3

GPL v3

Posted Aug 10, 2012 15:05 UTC (Fri) by dlang (subscriber, #313)
In reply to: GPL v3 by fb
Parent article: GENIVI: moving an industry to open source

do you measure by the number of toasters in use vs the number of cars in use, or by the number of hours that toasters are used vs the number of hours that cars are used?

I suspect that if you measured by the number of hours they are in use, the numbers would be a lot closer than you expect.


(Log in to post comments)

GPL v3

Posted Aug 10, 2012 15:24 UTC (Fri) by fb (subscriber, #53265) [Link]

> do you measure by the number of toasters in use vs the number of cars in use, or by the number of hours that toasters are used vs the number of hours that cars are used?

I honestly measure the totals (as in total # of injured or killed by per year), as that gives the cost of the toast/car safety to society (which are different words for "how likely a citizen to suffer from it").

It amounts to my original question asking how many are killed (or injured) by either per year in total.

(Now for the absurd argument...) Active volcano's are far more dangerous than toasters or cars /per minute/ but since the amount of minutes I get exposed to them is so low, I tend to worry a lot more about cars. (No, I don't have any idea of how we could hack a volcano (sorry)).

GPL v3

Posted Aug 10, 2012 15:38 UTC (Fri) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

raw fatality numbers are about the worst possible value to use when comparing two things and how dangerous they are.

to compare the risk you need to evaluate the costs compared to the amount of usage.

or you can do a risk analysis from a cost/benefit point of view, but there you again can't just compare the cost, you would have to quantify the benefits of the particular tool/technology.

Just comparing the resulting costs leads to absurd conclusions.

GPL v3

Posted Aug 10, 2012 15:55 UTC (Fri) by fb (subscriber, #53265) [Link]

> raw fatality numbers are about the worst possible value to use when comparing two things and how dangerous they are.

Go back and re-read my post.

I am not -in the least- interested in measuring the absolute danger level of something per minute (see the volcano example). I am interested in much danger that is for me, or my family, or my neighbor (I don't worry about volcanos).

The total is already the combination of danger per minute and rate of usage thought society.

> or you can do a risk analysis from a cost/benefit point of view, but there you again can't just compare the cost, you would have to quantify the benefits of the particular tool/technology.

My whole point in this discussion is that using toaster analogies with cars is pointless. Cars are far more dangerous, as in `the actual likelihood one will suffer from it in the next 12 months`.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds