ADA made me hate programming
in [ADA]
|
From: Marc A. Criley on 6 Jul 2010 20:10 On 07/06/2010 02:55 PM, anon(a)att.net wrote: > I believe it was also under Bush jr that a story also broke by CNN that > Bush's people were thrown for a loop. CNN know it first and that put > egg on a few faces. Bush himself comment on this one. Either A) you are making this up, or B) reporting hearsay/rumor as fact. > Also, if you want to know who said that missile were hack then you do > the research. My position is that there is no reputable report stating that missile in-flight updates were hacked. There is no research for me to do. I can't prove a negative, you simply need to provide one reputable counterexample. I'll wait... > Now, I never use Wikipedia for reference, to easy for someone to modify, > Because if I check Wikipedia one day the last mod date may change by the > next day. A *reliable* article on Wikipedia will include reference links to establish its credibility. Those references can be independently checked and verified. I've seen no reliable links from you for *any* claim you've made so far. > As for being "skeptical" I am total skeptical around here of most of this > type of posts. You appear to be severely lacking in skepticism about *your own* claims, since you follow-up a contested, unsupported claim with more unsupported claims. When I present a factual claim, I either include the reference or have it ready if questioned. When I espouse an opinion I note it as an opinion, and stand ready to debate it. My *opinion* is that "anon" is a poser. > And what I know of the aerospace and NASA would fill volumes. Your postings, from which a "picture" of your knowledge, experience, and abilities emerges, shows no evidence of this. And based on that "picture", this claim is in fact contraindicated. > Because you need know who you are talking to. That's true..."anon". Marc A. Criley http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=marc+a+criley+-information
From: anon on 7 Jul 2010 20:23 In <beadd$4c33c62e$433a4efa$30251(a)API-DIGITAL.COM>, "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM(a)mckae.com> writes: >On 07/06/2010 02:55 PM, anon(a)att.net wrote: >> I believe it was also under Bush jr that a story also broke by CNN that >> Bush's people were thrown for a loop. CNN know it first and that put >> egg on a few faces. Bush himself comment on this one. > >Either A) you are making this up, or B) reporting hearsay/rumor as fact. > >> Also, if you want to know who said that missile were hack then you do >> the research. > >My position is that there is no reputable report stating that missile >in-flight updates were hacked. There is no research for me to do. > >I can't prove a negative, you simply need to provide one reputable >counterexample. > >I'll wait... > >> Now, I never use Wikipedia for reference, to easy for someone to modify, >> Because if I check Wikipedia one day the last mod date may change by the >> next day. > >A *reliable* article on Wikipedia will include reference links to >establish its credibility. Those references can be independently checked >and verified. I've seen no reliable links from you for *any* claim >you've made so far. > >> As for being "skeptical" I am total skeptical around here of most of this >> type of posts. > >You appear to be severely lacking in skepticism about *your own* claims, >since you follow-up a contested, unsupported claim with more unsupported >claims. > >When I present a factual claim, I either include the reference or have >it ready if questioned. When I espouse an opinion I note it as an >opinion, and stand ready to debate it. > >My *opinion* is that "anon" is a poser. > >> And what I know of the aerospace and NASA would fill volumes. > >Your postings, from which a "picture" of your knowledge, experience, and >abilities emerges, shows no evidence of this. And based on that >"picture", this claim is in fact contraindicated. > > > Because you need know who you are talking to. > >That's true..."anon". > >Marc A. Criley >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=marc+a+criley+-information Since you have not proven, what I have said is false and at the same time raise the level to a personal attack you have from your begining post on this thread you are "proclaimed your Defeat." Most people will tell you, you can attack the topic or the detail of that topic but never attach the messenger because that how to losing battle. And after making personal attack people stop listen to the attacker. Now denying what I said and starting a personal attach you are saying that I too close to the actual truth for your comfort and by your action you have let the enemy know it. As for the one web site address you gave comes from the military which by design the military is bias to mislead the enemy. Which says the military wants the enemy to watch their left hand so they will not see that right cross of coming. My source came from the watchdog of the US gov't aka the press which just restated what the press briefing that the gov't made said. Now, the press is the only watchdog that the citizen of the US have to insure that the gov't does not become corrupt and harm the citizen they represent. And if they lie or misdirect the truth such as CBS's Dan Rather did they will find themselves out of a job and may be in some case the press company may be fined to the point that they may have to close shop. Then there the people that either visit this newgroup or post. The group that post are made up of students, professors, programmers both in the public and private sectors, companies that provide Ada compilers as well as GCC maintainers. Then there are the curious that would like to ask a question from time to time. Then there is others who just visit and that can include the entire world. Some of these people are good and some are bad but everyone should treat all people as good one until they make an attack. And then the reply is only to defend oneself. Now Simon Wright and myself have be at odds from time to time for around 5 years. I disagree with some things he says and he also disagree with me. Good, people can disagree from time to time and that does not make them bad.
From: Marc A. Criley on 8 Jul 2010 20:14
On 07/07/2010 07:23 PM, anon(a)att.net wrote: ><various things> Anon, I've made no personal attacks on you. While I have stated that I don't think you're a very good Ada designer or programmer, I clearly spelled out my reasons for that belief. Software design requires planning ahead, problem analysis, and skepticism about one's own and other's material and efforts. Your posts--throughout comp.lang.ada--show you clearly lacking in all three aspects, which bodes ill for the quality of your software skills. I completely agree that making personal attacks is the refuge of those without valid arguments, which is why I don't do that, or go ad hominem, or guilt-by-association, or make false analogies, etc. But drawing conclusions about a person's abilities from the evidence they've posted and their ability (or lack thereof) to mount a valid argument or defense is simply how humans go about estimating the credibility, abilities, and trustworthiness of others. (Head's up: you're not doing well.) You're saying that I haven't proved what you said is false. I think you need to go back and reread my responses. You claimed missile in-flight updates had been hacked and it was widely reported on the news. No, it wasn't, you haven't cited a single specific report from a reputable source for that claim--and all it takes is _one_ to prove me wrong. (I did look, and I couldn't find any either, not even from DISreputable sources :-) You claimed that Treason was the most common charge leveled against those who violated their security clearances. Again, no, I merely had to refer to the *first* Google link found using the keywords "US treason convictions" ("List of people convicted of treason Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"), which took me all of 10 seconds to conceive and execute, to verify that was a false claim as well. Believing something to be true doesn't make it true. Claiming something is true doesn't make it true. Repeatedly asserting something is true doesn't make it true. Refusing to back away from a claim proven false doesn't make it true. The comp.lang.ada newsgroup has long been an excellent gathering place for both Ada fans and those who have questions, and its regular denizens have always supported it as a robust and respectful place for questions, debate, news, and community support. But those who come here to troll, to have someone do their homework done for them, to make baldly false statements about the language, its applications, and the world in which it operates will get smacked down. The signal-to-noise ratio is very high in this group, and it has to be actively maintained to stay that way. (Comp.lang.ada has been this way for as long as I've been in it, and I just checked and found what I think was my first post--from early 1995!) Debate can be a little rough at times, and I've been on the receiving end of it, not all of it undeserved (http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/browse_thread/thread/beb0b7471c6440e3/ca3db59dd03d8ad1. I'll admit that some of my responses in that thread were a tad intemperate, but I was younger then, it takes muuuuuch more to rattle me now :-) The thing is that debate can be vigorous, and in those cases one needs to be knowledgeable, be prepared, and be credible. Simon Wright, Dmitry Kazakov, Pascal Obry, Ludovic Brenta, amongst many, many others have demonstrated in this newsgroup their knowledge of Ada, its use, and the thought behind it. They, again along with many others, make credible, reasoned arguments for their technical opinions, which may even contradict other newsgroup participants' from time to time. Their postings demonstrate that they've got the knowledge, the experience, and the technical chops to have _earned_ the credibility they possess on this forum. You, on the other hand, have made provably false claims, made personal attacks on other members (http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/browse_thread/thread/ebdc5ed511896a0/a1e3ffc9fcaaf6a7?lnk=gst&q=bauhaus#a1e3ffc9fcaaf6a7, "Discussion subject changed to 'To new TROLL named Georg Bauhaus' by anon"--sorry George :-), and claim "volumes of knowledge" but refuse to back it up with actual code, publications, or any other materials, citing "paperwork" that prevents you from doing so. But Simon, Dmitry, Pascal, me (http://www.mckae.com, http://sourceforge.net/projects/evex), and many others put our work out on on the Web for anyone to access, download, hopefully put to good use, and make their own determination about our competence and capabilities. I have no personal animosity towards you--you like Ada, which always grants some points in your favor. But I have no patience for foolishness, ignorance, and hubris, especially when it is proclaimed and defended as something other than what it is. Comp.lang.ada is a wonderful gathering place with great information and great professional people, and there is little tolerance for those who would damage it. Marc A. Criley |