Re: ADA made me hate programming

[anon@att.net]

In <746c$4c3253ae$433a4efa$25085@API-DIGITAL.COM>, "Marc A. Criley" <mcNOSPAM@mckae.com> writes:
>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
I believe it was also under Bush jr that a story also broke by CNN that 
Bush's people were thrown for a loop.  CNN know it first and that put 
egg on a few faces. Bush himself comment on this one.

Also, if you want to know who said that missile were hack then you do 
the research.  It's been around 6 years ago, but the information should 
still be found in print like the AP. Its just not that important to me. 
I guess I am just too old to care anymore.

Now, I never use Wikipedia for reference, to easy for someone to modify, 
Because if I check Wikipedia one day the last mod date may change by the 
next day.  An example. is a few days ago I said Algol was not used to as 
a base for Ada, because the design team examine Algol and decided to 
decline the use of Algol.  My reference was a report that is on Adaic.com 
the main reference for Ada. After that post the Wikipedia page on Ada was 
altered to say the Algol influenced Ada only hours after I make the post. 
Was it someone on this board, I am not sure but it just proves that what 
on Wikipedia can not be trusted. So, to me Wikipedia is too easy to 
modify for anyone to use for a true reference.  And most will also tell 
you believe less than 10% of what is on Wikipedia.

As for being "skeptical" I am total skeptical around here of most of this 
type of posts.  And I have found that after a few years here it just not 
worth my time in dealing with these issue or raising my blood pressure 
over it.  And what I know of the aerospace and NASA would fill volumes. I 
just do not give anyone the complete picture over the net, and in person 
must have paperwork that way I do not give any information that could 
cause harm to anyone. Because you need know who you are talking to.

Is that Skeptical enough for you! Some people are so skeptical of 
everything that you can not detect their skepticism, especially on the 
net. Because they choose not to fight, just accept you say something 
and they move on.

As for that well-known couple that was found guilty for Treason was a 
long time ago, But it kind sad and up setting that the gov't has only 
found less than 40 people. I think it should be 10.000 at least. Oh well, 
that our gov't for you.

But the new spys I was talking about were just captured a few weeks ago 
when the Pres of Russia was in Washington. And I heard about this because 
the girl a part of the spy ring or their family was making all of the news 
cast as well as the net, last week. Will she have to face the charge of 
Treason and then face death roll or a TV deal? But I leave that up to those 
whos job it is to prosecute the spy.  It important to the country but, for 
most people it just a conversion thought that will fade in a few weeks, 
unless she get the TV deal. I just hope the the AG does his job and is not 
trying to run for president in 2012 or something.

Now, like I said. Let get back to some we all can trust. Ada!