Re: Controlled Non-Validation

At 06:53 AM 08/08/98, you wrote:
>At 01:35 AM 8/8/98 -0400, Ryan Fischer wrote:
>
>>I really don't think you don't understand what "controlled non-validation"
>>(if there is such a "valid" term) means.  
>
>Wouldn't DON'T think you DON'T understand mean that, indeed, he/she does
>understand?
>
>Although the examples given and the assumption that a major corporation
>would necessarily be aware and care about validating is erroneous, the
>major point of the argument still stands.
I disagree that these companies dont know or care about validition.  I mean
would they spend that kind of time, money and other resources and not know
all the facts?  Maybe, but I think they know how to do business and I am
sure the research is done.


>Lack of validation through ignorance can not be considered the same as
>using code that doesn't validate with a full understanding of the
>ramifications of doing so. While controlled non-validation may well not be
>a "valid" term, it is most certianly a valid concept. 
>
>If one does not understand the difference between non-valid code created
>through ignorance and non-valid code created through knowledge, one is
>destined to be a perpetual victim of the former.
>
>--rick
That was all I was trying to say.

phil.

HWG hwg-theory mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA