"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ink.net...
Indeed, but this is the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
not some random collection of net kooks.

The quote itself is not from NIST. They simply provide the web site on
which it's contained.

In any case, not even the NIST is infalliable.

Say, why don't you write them and tell them they are wrong, eh?

Because I couldn't care less what they publish on their web site.

I couldn't get it to display either, but I put that down to my ancient
web browser. Look, it's not my job to tutor people in coding
theory. Go search the web yourself if you're interested.

You can either try to prove what you said is true, or not. That's your
choice. But don't expect people to just sit around while you make false
statements and just keep quiet.

No ****, Einstein. Say, you don't suppose that might be how
that corrupted data can get reconstructed do you?

Getting a little touchy, are you?

But wait. You started by vehemently denying that CRC's
provided error correction; now you're saying they can.

What I said is that CRCs are no different than parity checks. And they are
not, not fundamentally.

Of course, you can always add redundancy so that errors can be corrected
rather than requiring data to be resent/reread/whatever. But just because a
CRC can ALSO be made into a redundant data set, that does not make the CRC
inherently about error correction.

Your statement is like saying that, because Microsoft Word has an
HTML-output feature, all word processors are HTML editors. You are
confusing an added feature with the fundamental nature of something.

Guess you must get a buzz from pointlessly arguing with people.

Buzz? Uh, right. What I get is the urge to contest false information,
whenever and wherever I see it. When you stop posting false information,
I'll stop arguing with you.

Sorry Pete, but it doesn't do a thing for me so I'll stop..

You might as well.

Pete