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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,80ae596d36288e8a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!news.internetdienste.de!news.tu-darmstadt.de!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 10:38:13 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why no socket package in the standard ?
References: <op.vvyoslycule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <872169864327910446.796089rmhost.bauhaus-maps.arcor.de@news.arcor.de>
 <9cb23235-8824-43f4-92aa-d2e8d10e7d8c@ct4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
 <4ddb5bd7$0$302$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
 <4ddb81b8$0$7628$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <xazx5pxeo547.154hwuxjjylbs$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4ddbc090$0$6582$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <op.vv0ds3m3ule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <4ddc4e24$0$6554$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <4DDCB5D5.4070606@obry.net>
In-Reply-To: <4DDCB5D5.4070606@obry.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <4ddcbff6$0$6635$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 May 2011 10:38:14 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 035bfabd.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=7chMoo?GTL]f8j24CD<3lPA9EHlD;3YcR4Fo<]lROoRQ8kF<OcfhCO[<A`J>alo?o_PCY\c7>ejVXC[DnC`;PS\RS0=bgR@l6CW
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:20431
Date: 2011-05-25T10:38:14+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 5/25/11 9:55 AM, Pascal Obry wrote:
> Le 25/05/2011 02:32, Georg Bauhaus a écrit :
>> Bits are, in general, totally 0 or totally 1.
>
> Hum... Don't you remember the weak-bit from Copywrite tool that was able to write in a floppy disk a bit that could be 0 or 1. This was used as a software copy control at this time. Copywrite was able to mimic that to bypass the protection.

These are tits, then, not bits.