Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Friday 07 January 2005 06:01, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > You cannot justify the bad consequences your actions just by saying > > that they are the only way to get the good goals you desire. > > The problem with spam filtering is that it's always a matter of trade-offs. > If there is too much spam then when deleting all the spam you will > accidentally delete some non-spam.
Yes, but you have to actually describe the trade-offs, and importantly, who the trade-offs effect and what they can do to fix problems. Just saying "hey, some false positives are the price of success" is no argument, and that's what you said. "Success" hasn't been achieved if you are trading one failure for another; perhaps things are better, but you'll have to say exactly how. Also important is who is making the trade-offs, and on behalf of whom. When the costs get shunted on to other people, and you capture all the benefits yourself, it's very easy to assume the trade-offs must be worth it. Much different is if you have a system where you need the consent of those other people before you start trading them off! Thomas
