Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!romp!auschs!awdprime!doorstop.austin.ibm.com!tif
From: tif@doorstop.austin.ibm.com (Paul Chamberlain/32767)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Workstation Data Integrity
Message-ID: <3294@awdprime.UUCP>
Date: 29 Aug 90 13:21:27 GMT
References: <1990Aug3.204358.330@portia.Stanford.EDU> <40694@mips.mips.COM> <2399@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <1990Aug10.171744.9639@zoo.toronto.edu> <2421@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <1990Aug18.210132.25203@sco.COM> <2434@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <6797.26d6edce@vax1.tcd.ie> <2469@crdos1.cr
Sender: jroot@awdprime.UUCP
Reply-To: tif@doorstop.austin.ibm.com (Paul Chamberlain/32767)
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin, TX
Lines: 15

In article <2469@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
>No answer is better than a wrong answer. What would anyone
>bother to run on a computer which is so valueless that they don't care
>if they get a right answer, just so that you get an answer?

I'm sorry, but I have to go into reality mode here.  I can understand
if you were running a simulation on the space shuttle you'd rather
get no answer than a wrong answer.  But let's say you were doing something
more typical, like ... oh ... replying to a long article in news.  You've
been typing and researching for an hour now.  I ask you this: would you
rather I just blow away that entire article and crash your machine or change
a single random character?

Paul Chamberlain | I do NOT represent IBM         tif@doorstop, sc30661@ausvm6
512/838-7008     | ...!cs.utexas.edu!ibmaus!auschs!doorstop.austin.ibm.com!tif