On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 00:54:36 -0400 Gabe Goldberg <[email protected]> wrote:
:>Interesting article, especially for those of us around 30(!) years ago :>for OCO battles. :>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=secret-computer-code-threatens-science :>Some comments are scary -- like first one, 35 years geological research :>and not understanding this simple article. And others suggesting that :>software results be verified by rewriting software and comparing :>results. But not saying what to do when results compare unequal. Rewrite :>again and accept two-out-of-three? Maybe five-out-of-nine would suffice. To me it is quite logical that the verification should involve the verifier writing their own program. If the same program is used then the same results would be expected. Obviously the formulas used should be disclosed for peer review. -- Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information on Linux on System z, visit http://wiki.linuxvm.org/
