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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,27d18afb7e198c7f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed.mathworks.com!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: Craig Carey Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: SlashDot reviews the SPARK book Message-ID: References: <20619edc.0405201008.1742603e@posting.google.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 2.0/32.652 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:49:24 +1200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.54.193.236 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 1086220166 210.54.193.236 (Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:49:26 NZST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:49:26 NZST Organization: Xtra Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1044 Date: 2004-06-03T11:49:24+12:00 List-Id: On 20 May 2004 11:08:34 -0700, snarflemike@yahoo.com (Mike Silva) wrote: >Mark Lorenzen wrote in message news:... >> rod.chapman@praxis-cs.co.uk (Rod Chapman) writes: ... >> > back in December. Still...no such thing as bad publicity! :-) [...] >> > Rod, SPARK Team ... >> is no such thing as bad publicity, but it is frustrating to read the >> comments on the /. message board. ... >Funny thing is, none of these people actually live their lives that >way -- deciding that no precautions or advantages are worthwhile, >since no precaution or advantage can cover every possible situation. > SPARK might follow a value for money check. A slashdot posting said that given that only a small fraction of what it found was a real problem, SPARK was just required by the contract. The full entuirely of the comment would be rejected since the man was a Slashdot 'Anonymous Coward' Such posters are not given unique numbers by their website's software. Obviously the anonymous posters could be assigned a unique anonymizing number that is changed now and then. Though seemingly an extremely urgent need for Slashdot, no such feature exists. Such would occur if posting was an expression of a constitional right to a free press and a right to speech. Maybe some Ada programmer would send in a bug report. Craig Carey