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: 103376,447bd1cf7a88c198 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-09 07:29:53 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!news.tele.dk!194.42.224.136!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!newsfeed1.bredband.com!bredband!newsfeed01.se.dataphone.net!nntp.se.dataphone.net!news.powertech.no!nntp.newmedia.no!newsfeed1.enitel.no!news.telia.no!not-for-mail Sender: ohk@gong1.clustra.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Do we need "Mission-Critical" software? Was: What to Do? References: <3A4F5A4A.9ABA2C4F@chicagonet.net> <3A4F759E.A7D63F3F@netwood.net> <3A50ABDF.3A8F6C0D@acm.org> <92qdnn$jfg$1@news.huji.ac.il> <3A50C371.8B7B871@home.com> <3A51EC04.91353CE7@uol.com.br> <3A529C97.2CA4777F@home.com> <3A53CB9E.EA7CF86C@uol.com.br> <3A5466DE.811D43A5@acm.org> <932aol$ikc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <932mi6$r2k$1@trog.dera.gov.uk> <9343b1$3g5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <934iuf$eqv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <934kt2$gbh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <937jvn$si3$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93bv37$43b$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93e2d1$spv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93eoku$cm2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93f6jl$mf7$1@nnrp1.deja.com> From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen Message-ID: X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 15:29:51 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.204.160.194 X-Complaints-To: abuse@enitel.no X-Trace: news.telia.no 979054191 195.204.160.194 (Tue, 09 Jan 2001 16:29:51 CET) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 16:29:51 CET Organization: Enitel Internet Public Access Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3818 Date: 2001-01-09T15:29:51+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar writes: > > > > But, it was litteral translation from french, where (to my > knowledge, > > may be I'm wrong) it means that when you find a very small > number of > > exceptions to a rule, widely true otherwise, you'd better > trust the rule > > is most cases, rather than thinking you met an exception each > time rule > > goes against your convinctions. > > > Investigate:-) In English, most people also think, quite > wrongly, that this is what the saying means, because the use of > prove in the sense of test is obsolete. > > After all an exception generally DISPROVES a rule, that is > what scientific progress is all about. One violation of a > theory in experiment is enough to reject the theory, or at > least require its refinement. > > > Sent via Deja.com > http://www.deja.com/ Certainly, but in other languages, they saying is exactly the opposite, namely that the exception is what proves the rule. And I do not mean prove in the sense of test, but in the sense of making certain. Of course this saying is nonsense, but it actually goes like that. -- Kabelsalat ist gesund. Ole-Hj. Kristensen