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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac4955b8006bd13c
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.220.230 with SMTP id pz6mr2388144pbc.3.1339067740444;
        Thu, 07 Jun 2012 04:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni19948pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin1!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.tu-darmstadt.de!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 13:15:42 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Q: type ... is new String
References: <jq5i58$qe8$1@speranza.aioe.org> <jqi6qb$oms$1@dont-email.me>
 <82defba0-2d39-4418-b678-ebbefeb105d7@x21g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
 <4fcccd1f$0$6583$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <ljq3c42wn6kg.137fdbql13gf0$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4fccdd0c$0$6578$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <zsk0ul695neq.184hx8ckz554b$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4fcd20dd$0$9519$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <1tr1nuc1xy9mp$.d5s1fz9vuczz.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4fcdc605$0$9524$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <1ch26v7folac1$.1gc355i72r55j.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4fcdf97f$0$9521$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <jqoqmm$8hf$1@munin.nbi.dk>
In-Reply-To: <jqoqmm$8hf$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Message-ID: <4fd08d5b$0$9515$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 07 Jun 2012 13:15:39 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3047815a.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=YX8Z4Z>W51nEB;5>eE0T7mic==]BZ:afn4Fo<]lROoRankgeX?EC@@`?Z7BlCkWK7gPCY\c7>ejVhjEH3UNKm2Om@I8XJbNV^Zk
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-06-07T13:15:39+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 07.06.12 01:56, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Georg Bauhaus"<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>  wrote in message
> news:4fcdf97f$0$9521$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...
>> On 05.06.12 11:06, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>
>>>> (All I see is subsequences of 2#bbbb_bbbb#. For the AI part,
>>>> I am told to produce the most likely information that the
>>>> originator might have intended to send.)
>>>
>>> Bad design. Don't do that.
>>
>> How is producing the most likely information from a piece
>> of data bad design? And who am I to say "I don't do that"?
>
> It's bad design. Malformed input should always be rejected, period. Any
> other situation leads to zillions of security holes. And if you're not
> willing to say "don't do that", let me do so for you. :-)

Thanks. However, technical considerations are only one of the inputs
to the utility function that maps from the multidimensional space of
business factors into money. If to reject means values further away
from its maximum, I can't reject. A better internet is not the
immediate business model, as usual. Nor would the garbage care
if one of its copies was rejected by our programs. ;-)

In my case, the programs have to operate like a very small Google:
They shall find interesting information in all the garbage precisely
because combinations of bits of information in there may turn out to be
worth the effort (i.e., the money). Pragmatic requirements, yes,
and they influence the "design". So strings it is, for the most part.