ext_86380 ([identity profile] cruiser.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] doc_strange 2006-05-20 07:37 pm (UTC)

It also could be evidence that the contingency that the contingency plan is designed to mitigate is so bad that any plan, even a bad one, is better than no plan at all. It also probably means that the situation is so unlikely to happen that the cost of testing the plan is greater than the cost of the problems created by the situation. multiplied by the probablility of it happening.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting