![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
watch your asteroid
Jan. 16th, 2008 10:59 amIt's very rare for me to disagree with Bruce Schneier, but his latest article approvingly quotes someone who violates both Rule 1 and Rule 1A of The Rules of Mathematically Inapt Comparisons.
Rule 1 is "Never compare the rarity of something that actually happens in real life with the possibility of being hit by a meteorite." The real-life event being compared with it here is of being a file-sharer sued by the RIAA, which according to Bruce is 26,000 out of 15 million. That's about 1 in 575. With 6 billion people on Earth and an average lifespan of 70 years (probably an overestimate), that would be 150 thousand people hit by meteorites every year, if I've calculated this correctly.
But it's worse than that. This authority also violated Rule 1A. Rule 1A is, "When you mean to say 'meteorite', don't say 'asteroid' instead." Anyone who doesn't know the difference has no business writing about either.
Rule 1 is "Never compare the rarity of something that actually happens in real life with the possibility of being hit by a meteorite." The real-life event being compared with it here is of being a file-sharer sued by the RIAA, which according to Bruce is 26,000 out of 15 million. That's about 1 in 575. With 6 billion people on Earth and an average lifespan of 70 years (probably an overestimate), that would be 150 thousand people hit by meteorites every year, if I've calculated this correctly.
But it's worse than that. This authority also violated Rule 1A. Rule 1A is, "When you mean to say 'meteorite', don't say 'asteroid' instead." Anyone who doesn't know the difference has no business writing about either.
