Print

Print


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
> > 3. English text - ASCII, ANSI or otherwise represented - is highly
> > tolerant of error. Executable code is not. Audio is moderately tolerant
> > for most listeners in most cases.
> 
> This I do not understand. With each bit being significant for text, how
> can text be less subject to error?
> 
Simple. If the last line above read:
"can tfxt be less s@bject to errpr?"
you would be able to figure out what was intended (though you'd probably
blame Mike's typing skills and not byte corruption!). On the other hand
if a line of machine-language code read
"EUYGHGNBMK*&786ful#heyk45ljk  ghg54"
rather than
"EUZGHGNBNK*&786ful#heyk+5ljk  ghg54"
There is no telling what the processor would do instead of what it should
have done (an expert in the internal language of your processor chip could
tell you, but the result would probably be fatal to the program...)

Steven C. Barr