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: 103376,751d508677a5add1 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!API-DIGITAL.COM-a2kHrUvQQWlmc!not-for-mail Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:50:05 -0500 From: "Marc A. Criley" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100423 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ADA made me hate programming References: <8f469661-370c-4484-82d8-f1b365455e0f@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <7865d$4c3125c1$433a4efa$24658@API-DIGITAL.COM> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <746c$4c3253ae$433a4efa$25085@API-DIGITAL.COM> X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com Organization: UseNetServer.com X-Trace: 0746c4c3253aee69feb5f25085 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:13173 Date: 2010-07-05T16:50:05-05:00 List-Id: I don't think you're a very good Ada programmer or software designer. A good designer needs to plan ahead, anticipate problems, be skeptical of theirs and other's ideas, designs, and software. In these exchanges you show little or no indication of possessing these qualities. For example, in this thread you claimed that it had been reported that missile IFTUs (In-Flight Target Updates) had been hacked. I said: >>>> Cite a trustworthy source of such a "report". You finally responded with: > FOX/CBS/ABC/NBC "AP wire" -- should I go on. Why yes, you should. When was the supposed report supposedly broadcast? Is the video of the report online somewhere? What link? Is there a transcript of the news report, or an article writeup (most news organizations do have online articles about news stories of significant interest--of which hacking in-flight missiles would certainly qualify)? Now, if you thought that would be a sufficient reference, when it is self-evidently inadequately specified, and so vague as to support *nothing*, then you clearly didn't anticipate this obvious problem with your response, suggesting you don't do well in anticipating problems. And that's a real handicap when it comes to designing software. Or you knew this was insufficient, but hoped I wouldn't. This goes back to your apparent lack of problem anticipation abilities. :-) Or you know you can't substantiate the report, but just can't bear to back down in public from something you proclaimed and then fervently defended. It's hard, I know, I've had to do it when I've been mistaken on the facts about some matter. This then illustrates an inability to plan ahead. Immediately upon my questioning your claim, you should have been able to see where this could go (and subsequently has gone) and either made sure you had reputably-sourced facts in hand, or immediately backpedaled. You did neither, and continued to mount a wholly inadequate defense of your questionable claim. So not only did you apparently not realize you had encountered a real problem, but you were unable to foresee the potential consequences as it played out. Again, these are serious weaknesses when it comes to designing software in Ada or any other programming language. Let me give you an example of how to properly defend a claim--from this same posting. I stated that: >> And while violating one's clearance would subject them to >> potentially serious penalties, the nature of the violation would >> have to be quite egregious to rise to the level of Treason. You could have questioned me on this, that I provide some backup for it from a reputable source. You lacked genuine skepticism about my claim, and rather than demanding I back it up, you made another unsourced claim: > Anytime US is at war, include the ones the we are in today, the > charge is more likely to be Treason than any other charge. Refuting this claim is trivial: "In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions. "The Cold War period saw few prosecutions for treason. On October 11, 2006, a federal grand jury issued the first indictment for treason against the United States since 1952, charging Adam Yahiye Gadahn for videos in which he appeared as a spokesman for al-Qaeda and threatened attacks on American soil." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States This is a sort of back-hand support for my claim, in that violating one's security clearance would have to be of an extraordinarily serious nature to rise to the level of treason. It is, however, a thorough repudiation of yours, and from what's considered a fairly reputable source--Wikipedia. (And if you question that source, there are numerous links provided to the reputable sources for its information. See how this works?) There are several additional claims and statements made in the rest of that posting which are indicative of a lack of problem recognition, foresight, and skeptical abilities; and a profound ignorance of how the aerospace and defense industry actually functions. If you want to bring them up, fine, I'll address them. But it's just the "same old same old" when it comes to dealing with your postings. There's so much ignorance and ineptitude in your statements that anything of actual value is lost in the junk. Think before you post. If questioned, can you link or reference a *specific* supporting source? If you're making a claim, and it's disputed, anticipate where it might end up, and prepare for that in advance. Work hard. Think. Marc A. Criley