From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c9d5fc258548b22a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!transit4.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!postnews7.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 11:48:07 -0500
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How do I write directly to a memory address?
References: 
 <67063a5b-f588-45ea-bf22-ca4ba0196ee6@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <19fh1chm74f9.11cws0j5bckze.dlg@40tude.net>
 <fa33fca1-c95b-4558-8a4c-7b3276366ffc@m13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <4d4ff70e$0$6886$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <737a6396-72bd-4a1e-8895-7d50f287960e@d28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
 <4d5008a5$0$6879$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <eda00084-fcc3-416c-bd3e-8b9e9c1a4b40@o13g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
 <4d5031fe$0$6765$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <1f229967-d3cf-42b6-8087-c97ee08652f3@i40g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <4d51169e$0$7657$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <db60098c-2569-4efb-aa81-253ba53686b4@y26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <iis37l$t09$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <4d51905c$0$19486$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <36212a7b-deab-45d9-ac45-aa29cd90c7bc@o18g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
 <4d51a7bb$0$19486$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <iisll6$9th$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <4d52b489$0$19486$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <9a8njlwvey1p.1a96yvvgdf6yu.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <9a8njlwvey1p.1a96yvvgdf6yu.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4d52c5e5$0$19486$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: a6a22640.usenet-news.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=g`n:@@?J@THM9]>jB74i=JQFZ3T]GPM]GmX0AG3X_jUOHL[6Z1g^FC@VjKk:Lk^BNAcR12TN^Bg7N:KNd2lZeh5Li1WZZ``>cDD
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenet-news.net
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17097
Date: 2011-02-09T11:48:07-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2/9/2011 11:15 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> It is theoretically possible to say if a program is correct

No it's not, because the statement of correctness is equivalent to
the program itself; you simply push the potential error out one level.
How do I know that your assertion as to the correctness of the
program accurately models what the program should do?

> Even if the damage inflicted by a program is less than one by a
> malfunctioned hardware there is a psychological difference. People do not
> accept preventable or deliberate damages. E.g. it is OK for thousands to
> die in car accidents, but intolerable when a single person die in gun
> shooting.

Your example is false; it is not intolerable when a single person
dies in a gun shooting. Here in the U.S. we do not take away guns
from the public even though some of its members use them to murder.

And in fact, people treat computer programs as they do other more
physical objects. They work around problems, they upgrade to better
versions, and they complain.