f



GEORGE MARSAGLIA, KING OF PRNGs

George Marsaglia (1924 - February 15, 2011[1]) was a mathematician and computer scientist. He is perhaps best known for 
establishing the lattice structure[2] of congruential random number generators in the paper "Random numbers fall mainly 
in the planes", often called the Marsaglia effect,[3] or for developing the Diehard Battery of Tests of Randomness; a 
series of tests to determine whether or not a sequence of numbers have the statistical properties that could be expected 
from a random sequence.

In 1995 he published a CD-ROM of random numbers which included the Diehard tests.[4]

He is also known for developing some of the most commonly used methods for generating random numbers and using them to 
produce random samples from various distributions. Some of the most widely used being the multiply-with-carry, 
subtract-with-borrow, Xorshift, KISS, Mother methods for random numbers and the ziggurat algorithm for generating 
normally (or other unimodal) distributed random variables.

He was Professor Emeritus of Pure and Applied Mathematics and Computer Science at Washington State University and 
Professor Emeritus of Statistics at Florida State University.

Dr. Marsaglia died of a heart attack on February 15, 2011, in Tallahassee

___________

--From Wiki.


0
robin512 (311)
4/20/2011 12:35:09 AM
comp.lang.pl1 1741 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

107 Replies
922 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 24

"Uno" <merrilljensen@q.com> wrote in message news:8bfh28Fve1U1@mid.individual.net...
| robin wrote:
| > "jacob navia" <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote in message news:i2fir2$op4$1@speranza.aioe.org...
| >
| > | This doesn't work with systems that have unsigned long as a 64 bit quantity.
| > |
| > | I obtain:
| > |
| > |  MWC result=3740121002 ?
| > |             4169348530
| > | KISS result=2224631993 ?
| > |             1421918629
| >
| > For a 64-bit machine (using 64-bit integer arithmetic),
| > you'd need to truncate each result to 32 bits.  That not
| > only applies to the multiplication, it also applies to addition, etc.
| > On a 32-bit machine, these extra bits are discarded,
| > but in 64-bit arithmetic, they are retained,
| > and unless they are similarly discarded,
| > you won't get the same results.
| > I suggest using IAND(k, 2*2147483647+1)
| > for the truncation.
| >
| > With such modifications in the program,
| > it should then produce the same results on both 32-bit and
| > 64-bit machines.
| >
| > P.S. the product 2*2... is best obtained using ISHFT.
| >
| > | Compiling with 32 bit machine yields:
| > |  MWC result=3740121002 ?
| > |             3740121002
| > | KISS result=2224631993 ?
| > |             2224631993
|
| First of all, I think we're talking to the actual George Marsaglia here.
|
| $ gcc -Wall -Wextra geo1.c -o out
| geo1.c: In function 'MWC':
| geo1.c:5: warning: type defaults to 'int' in declaration of 'c'
| geo1.c:5: warning: type defaults to 'int' in declaration of 'j'
| geo1.c:5: warning: unused variable 'i'
| geo1.c: In function 'main':
| geo1.c:21: warning: format '%22u' expects type 'unsigned int', but
| argument 2 has type 'long unsigned int'
| geo1.c:23: warning: format '%22u' expects type 'unsigned int', but
| argument 2 has type 'long unsigned int'
| geo1.c:24: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
|
| $ ./out
|  MWC result=3740121002 ?
|             3740121002
| KISS result=2224631993 ?
|             2224631993
| $ cat geo1.c
| static unsigned long xs=521288629,xcng=362436069,Q[4691];
|
| unsigned long MWC(void)  /*takes about 4.2 nanosecs or 238 million/
| second*/
| {unsigned long t,x,i; static c=0,j=4691;
|   j=(j<4690)? j+1:0;
|   x=Q[j];
|   t=(x<<13)+c+x; c=(t<x)+(x>>19);
|   return (Q[j]=t);
| }
|
| #define CNG ( xcng=69069*xcng+123 )
| #define XS ( xs^=(xs<<13), xs^=(xs>>17), xs^=(xs<<5) )
| #define KISS ( MWC()+CNG+XS ) /*138 million/sec*/
|
| #include <stdio.h>
| int main()
| {unsigned long i,x;
|  for(i=0;i<4691;i++) Q[i]=CNG+XS;
|  for(i=0;i<1000000000;i++) x=MWC();
|  printf(" MWC result=3740121002 ?\n%22u\n",x);
|  for(i=0;i<1000000000;i++) x=KISS;
|  printf("KISS result=2224631993 ?\n%22u\n",x);
| }

| So, what is all this?  In particular, is there something special about
| the value of 3.7 billion?

No, nothing special at all.
The purpose of the exercise is just to confirm that after generating
1000000000 random numbers, you get the same answer as George does. 


0
robin512 (311)
4/28/2011 1:14:49 AM

"robin"  wrote in message

| So, what is all this?  In particular, is there something special about
| the value of 3.7 billion?

>No, nothing special at all.
>The purpose of the exercise is just to confirm that after generating
>1000000000 random numbers, you get the same answer as George does.

Alas, I think you are making some strong assumptions about the state of 
computing in the hereafter.

0
epc8 (1259)
4/28/2011 11:42:04 AM
On 4/28/2011 11:42 PM, e p chandler wrote:
>
>
> "robin" wrote in message
>
> | So, what is all this? In particular, is there something special about
> | the value of 3.7 billion?
>
>> No, nothing special at all.
>> The purpose of the exercise is just to confirm that after generating
>> 1000000000 random numbers, you get the same answer as George does.
>
> Alas, I think you are making some strong assumptions about the state of
> computing in the hereafter.
>

George lives on in his code.
0
g.bogle2029 (107)
4/29/2011 12:55:05 AM
e p chandler wrote:
>
>
> "robin" wrote in message
>
> | So, what is all this? In particular, is there something special about
> | the value of 3.7 billion?
>
>> No, nothing special at all.
>> The purpose of the exercise is just to confirm that after generating
>> 1000000000 random numbers, you get the same answer as George does.
>
> Alas, I think you are making some strong assumptions about the state of
> computing in the hereafter.
>

All we have now are George Marsaglia's posts and writings.
I know there's now a move on the way to 64-bit processors,
which I take to mean the x86_64 or AMD64 design/instruction set.

In any case, with an executable compiled with a C compiler,
there's the function sizeof, which might be useful
in some cases at run time.

For example, one could add to main() in C :

printf("the size of an unsigned long in bytes is %d\n", sizeof(unsigned long));

There's also the Itanium architecture and others, and even with a known
processor, some compiler flags affect the number of bytes for
some data types, such as "long double" with the -m64 flag
on Fujitsu SPARC IV with Sun Solaris (--> 16 byte long
doubles with the -m64 flag).

AFAIK, sizeof(unsigned long) can be relied upon to give the size
in 8-bit bytes of a C "unsigned long".

Perhaps some documentation of language, machine, compiler, compiler
options examples where KISS4691 works as per the Marsaglia
specs could be helpful as a reference ...

David Bernier

-- 
The MegaPenny Project | One Trillion Pennies:
<http://www.kokogiak.com/megapenny/thirteen.asp>
0
david250 (151)
4/29/2011 1:50:54 AM
On 04/29/11 01:50 PM, David Bernier wrote:
> e p chandler wrote:
>>
>>
>> "robin" wrote in message
>>
>> | So, what is all this? In particular, is there something special about
>> | the value of 3.7 billion?
>>
>>> No, nothing special at all.
>>> The purpose of the exercise is just to confirm that after generating
>>> 1000000000 random numbers, you get the same answer as George does.
>>
>> Alas, I think you are making some strong assumptions about the state of
>> computing in the hereafter.
>>
>
> All we have now are George Marsaglia's posts and writings.
> I know there's now a move on the way to 64-bit processors,
> which I take to mean the x86_64 or AMD64 design/instruction set.

The move happened several years ago (at least on the desktop and server).

> In any case, with an executable compiled with a C compiler,
> there's the function sizeof, which might be useful
> in some cases at run time.

Being pedantic, sizeof is a compile time operator when used with 
integral types.

> For example, one could add to main() in C :
>
> printf("the size of an unsigned long in bytes is %d\n", sizeof(unsigned long));

Given the code as written, assert(sizeof(unsigned long) == 4) would be 
more use.

> There's also the Itanium architecture and others, and even with a known
> processor, some compiler flags affect the number of bytes for
> some data types, such as "long double" with the -m64 flag
> on Fujitsu SPARC IV with Sun Solaris (-->  16 byte long
> doubles with the -m64 flag).
>
> AFAIK, sizeof(unsigned long) can be relied upon to give the size
> in 8-bit bytes of a C "unsigned long".

sizeof(unsigned long) is by definition the size in (not necessarily 8 
bit) bytes of an unsigned long.

> Perhaps some documentation of language, machine, compiler, compiler
> options examples where KISS4691 works as per the Marsaglia
> specs could be helpful as a reference ...

I suggested long ago the code be updated to use fixed width types, thus 
removing any ambiguities.

-- 
Ian Collins
0
ian-news (10155)
4/29/2011 2:09:15 AM
In comp.lang.fortran David Bernier <david250@videotron.ca> wrote:

(snip)
> All we have now are George Marsaglia's posts and writings.
> I know there's now a move on the way to 64-bit processors,
> which I take to mean the x86_64 or AMD64 design/instruction set.

I have an actual Itanium system, but not so many people do.

> In any case, with an executable compiled with a C compiler,
> there's the function sizeof, which might be useful
> in some cases at run time.

Well, sizeof is a compile time constant, but, yes, you can
use the value at run time.
 
(snip)
> AFAIK, sizeof(unsigned long) can be relied upon to give the size
> in 8-bit bytes of a C "unsigned long".

No.  You need CHAR_BIT to tell how many bits are in a char.
It has been known to get to 64 on word addressed 64 bit machines.
It must be at least 8, but can be more.

-- glen
0
gah (12851)
4/29/2011 2:34:23 AM
On 4/28/2011 10:09 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/29/11 01:50 PM, David Bernier wrote:
>> [...]
>> All we have now are George Marsaglia's posts and writings.
>> I know there's now a move on the way to 64-bit processors,
>> which I take to mean the x86_64 or AMD64 design/instruction set.
>
> The move happened several years ago (at least on the desktop and server).

     ... for suitable values of "several."  DEC's first Alpha CPU's
shipped in 1992, and are now old enough to vote.

>> In any case, with an executable compiled with a C compiler,
>> there's the function sizeof, which might be useful
>> in some cases at run time.
>
> Being pedantic, sizeof is a compile time operator when used with
> integral types.

     It's an operator, always.  It's evaluable at compile time for
any operand, integral or not, except a variable-length array (whose
element count is not determined until run time).

-- 
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid
0
esosman2 (3096)
4/29/2011 3:01:28 AM
On 04/29/11 03:01 PM, Eric Sosman wrote:
> On 4/28/2011 10:09 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 04/29/11 01:50 PM, David Bernier wrote:
>
>>> In any case, with an executable compiled with a C compiler,
>>> there's the function sizeof, which might be useful
>>> in some cases at run time.
>>
>> Being pedantic, sizeof is a compile time operator when used with
>> integral types.
>
>       It's an operator, always.  It's evaluable at compile time for
> any operand, integral or not, except a variable-length array (whose
> element count is not determined until run time).

The context was integral types, I didn't want to venture anywhere near 
VLAs on a cross-post!

-- 
Ian Collins
0
ian-news (10155)
4/29/2011 3:09:16 AM
Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/29/11 01:50 PM, David Bernier wrote:
[...]

>> All we have now are George Marsaglia's posts and writings.
>> I know there's now a move on the way to 64-bit processors,
>> which I take to mean the x86_64 or AMD64 design/instruction set.
>
> The move happened several years ago (at least on the desktop and server).
>
>> In any case, with an executable compiled with a C compiler,
>> there's the function sizeof, which might be useful
>> in some cases at run time.
>
> Being pedantic, sizeof is a compile time operator when used with
> integral types.
>
>> For example, one could add to main() in C :
>>
>> printf("the size of an unsigned long in bytes is %d\n",
>> sizeof(unsigned long));
>
> Given the code as written, assert(sizeof(unsigned long) == 4) would be
> more use.
>
>> There's also the Itanium architecture and others, and even with a known
>> processor, some compiler flags affect the number of bytes for
>> some data types, such as "long double" with the -m64 flag
>> on Fujitsu SPARC IV with Sun Solaris (--> 16 byte long
>> doubles with the -m64 flag).
>>
>> AFAIK, sizeof(unsigned long) can be relied upon to give the size
>> in 8-bit bytes of a C "unsigned long".
>
> sizeof(unsigned long) is by definition the size in (not necessarily 8
> bit) bytes of an unsigned long.
>
>> Perhaps some documentation of language, machine, compiler, compiler
>> options examples where KISS4691 works as per the Marsaglia
>> specs could be helpful as a reference ...
>
> I suggested long ago the code be updated to use fixed width types, thus
> removing any ambiguities.

I'm sorry about the inaccuracies and falsehoods in my post.
I support your suggestion, perhaps also adding comments.
I'm the wrong person to update the code, but I would be
willing to test updated C code.

David Bernier
0
david250 (151)
4/29/2011 3:16:10 AM
In article <ipd9oo$kug$1@dont-email.me>,
Eric Sosman  <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
>On 4/28/2011 10:09 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>
>>> In any case, with an executable compiled with a C compiler,
>>> there's the function sizeof, which might be useful
>>> in some cases at run time.
>>
>> Being pedantic, sizeof is a compile time operator when used with
>> integral types.
>
>     It's an operator, always.  It's evaluable at compile time for
>any operand, integral or not, except a variable-length array (whose
>element count is not determined until run time).

It's not just evaluable at compile time, it is evaluated using
only the type and not the value of the expression.  C99 6.5.3.4
paragraph 2.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
0
nmm12 (1380)
4/29/2011 6:15:19 AM
On 04/28/2011 08:34 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> In comp.lang.fortran David Bernier<david250@videotron.ca>  wrote:
>
> (snip)
>> All we have now are George Marsaglia's posts and writings.
>> I know there's now a move on the way to 64-bit processors,
>> which I take to mean the x86_64 or AMD64 design/instruction set.
>
> I have an actual Itanium system, but not so many people do.
>
>> In any case, with an executable compiled with a C compiler,
>> there's the function sizeof, which might be useful
>> in some cases at run time.
>
> Well, sizeof is a compile time constant, but, yes, you can
> use the value at run time.
>
> (snip)
>> AFAIK, sizeof(unsigned long) can be relied upon to give the size
>> in 8-bit bytes of a C "unsigned long".
>
> No.  You need CHAR_BIT to tell how many bits are in a char.
> It has been known to get to 64 on word addressed 64 bit machines.
> It must be at least 8, but can be more.
>
> -- glen

I'm dealing with this same issue in my real life, as my algebraist uncle 
seems to have early-onset alzheimer's.   So he has his demonstrable 
achievements in science and the last few years where he embarrassed himself.

George's C was atrocious at the end.  I'd like to let that die.

A kiss is a kiss; it's simple, effective, and not improved by 
redefinition when you've lost your marbles.
-- 
Uno
0
Uno (113)
4/29/2011 7:04:03 AM
"e p chandler" <epc8@juno.com> wrote in message news:ipbjqf$q4k$1@dont-email.me...

| Alas, I think you are making some strong assumptions about the state of
| computing in the hereafter.

The sun is not scheduled for burnout for a few million years yet. 


0
robin512 (311)
4/29/2011 9:43:48 AM
glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
> In comp.lang.fortran David Bernier <david250@videotron.ca> wrote:
[...]
>> AFAIK, sizeof(unsigned long) can be relied upon to give the size
>> in 8-bit bytes of a C "unsigned long".
>
> No.  You need CHAR_BIT to tell how many bits are in a char.
> It has been known to get to 64 on word addressed 64 bit machines.
> It must be at least 8, but can be more.

Certainly CHAR_BIT *could* be 64 (or even more), but I've never heard
of a 64-bit system with CHAR_BIT==64.  Such an implementation would
have trouble dealing with octet-oriented data from other systems.
Some DSPs (digital signal processors) do have CHAR_BIT > 8.
There have been systems with, for example, 9-bit bytes, but they
had pretty much become obsolete by the time C was standardized.

C defines two kinds of implementations, hosted and freestanding.
Hosted implementations must support the full standard library
(stdio and so forth); freestanding implementations are typically for
systems where the program doesn't run under an operating system,
such as embedded systems and OS kernels.  I've never heard of a
hosted implementation with CHAR_BIT > 8.

Do you know of such a system?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
0
kst-u (21963)
4/29/2011 3:13:23 PM
In comp.lang.fortran Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:

(snip, I wrote)
>> No.  You need CHAR_BIT to tell how many bits are in a char.
>> It has been known to get to 64 on word addressed 64 bit machines.
>> It must be at least 8, but can be more.
 
> Certainly CHAR_BIT *could* be 64 (or even more), but I've never heard
> of a 64-bit system with CHAR_BIT==64.  Such an implementation would
> have trouble dealing with octet-oriented data from other systems.
> Some DSPs (digital signal processors) do have CHAR_BIT > 8.
> There have been systems with, for example, 9-bit bytes, but they
> had pretty much become obsolete by the time C was standardized.

The story I remember was for a Cray machine, but I never used
one to check on it.  I do know that there are some 64 bit
word addressed machines, especially some from Cray.

-- glen
0
gah (12851)
4/29/2011 5:41:24 PM
glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
> In comp.lang.fortran Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> (snip, I wrote)
>>> No.  You need CHAR_BIT to tell how many bits are in a char.
>>> It has been known to get to 64 on word addressed 64 bit machines.
>>> It must be at least 8, but can be more.
>  
>> Certainly CHAR_BIT *could* be 64 (or even more), but I've never heard
>> of a 64-bit system with CHAR_BIT==64.  Such an implementation would
>> have trouble dealing with octet-oriented data from other systems.
>> Some DSPs (digital signal processors) do have CHAR_BIT > 8.
>> There have been systems with, for example, 9-bit bytes, but they
>> had pretty much become obsolete by the time C was standardized.
>
> The story I remember was for a Cray machine, but I never used
> one to check on it.  I do know that there are some 64 bit
> word addressed machines, especially some from Cray.

I used to work on a Cray T90.  It had 64-bit words, and no direct
hardware access to smaller chunks of memory; to read an 8-bit byte,
you had to read the word containing it and then extract the bits
you wanted.  But the C compiler (C90, it never implemented C99)
had CHAR_BIT==8.  char was 8 bits; short, int, and long were all
64 bits.  A pointer to anything smaller than a 64-bit word stored
the byte offset in the high-order 3 bits (the address space was
much smaller than 64 bits, so the high-order bits weren't being
used for anything else).  This was all handled in software; the
compiler had to generate extra instructions to deal with byte data.

Making CHAR_BIT==64 would have made much more sense for the machine
itself in isolation, but it would have made interoperability with
other systems quite difficult.  It ran Unicos, Cray's BSDish Unix;
I'm not sure you can even implement Unix with bytes bigger than
8 bits.

It made it very slow for things like string processing, but since
it was primarily used for floating-point computations that wasn't
much of an issue.

Some older Cray vector systems ran other, non-Unix, operating systems
(COS, CTSS), but I never used any of those, and I don't know what
value their compilers used for CHAR_BIT -- if C was even supported.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
0
kst-u (21963)
4/29/2011 7:53:27 PM
On 2011-04-29, David Bernier <david250@videotron.ca> wrote:
> AFAIK, sizeof(unsigned long) can be relied upon to give the size
> in 8-bit bytes of a C "unsigned long".

No, it can be relied to give the size in "bytes" in C of "unsigned long",
but "byte" is just a synonym for "the type char", and there have been
systems where that's not 8-bit bytes.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
0
usenet-nospam (2309)
4/29/2011 10:43:44 PM
On 2011-04-29, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> Certainly CHAR_BIT *could* be 64 (or even more), but I've never heard
> of a 64-bit system with CHAR_BIT==64.  Such an implementation would
> have trouble dealing with octet-oriented data from other systems.

I've heard of at least one system where sizeof(int64_t) was 1, but I'm not
sure what range of values was allowed in chars.  Presumably unsigned char
was 0..2^64-1.

It was also a LONG time ago, and may not have been standard C.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
0
usenet-nospam (2309)
4/29/2011 10:45:28 PM
"Keith Thompson" <kst-u@mib.org> wrote in message 
news:lnsjt1w0oc.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org...
> glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
>> In comp.lang.fortran David Bernier <david250@videotron.ca> wrote:
> [...]
>>> AFAIK, sizeof(unsigned long) can be relied upon to give the size
>>> in 8-bit bytes of a C "unsigned long".
>>
>> No.  You need CHAR_BIT to tell how many bits are in a char.
>> It has been known to get to 64 on word addressed 64 bit machines.
>> It must be at least 8, but can be more.
>
> Certainly CHAR_BIT *could* be 64 (or even more), but I've never heard
> of a 64-bit system with CHAR_BIT==64.  Such an implementation would
> have trouble dealing with octet-oriented data from other systems.
> Some DSPs (digital signal processors) do have CHAR_BIT > 8.
> There have been systems with, for example, 9-bit bytes, but they
> had pretty much become obsolete by the time C was standardized.

The Unisys U2200 implementation that we used in the mid-1990's had 9-bit 
characters, and had a full C implementation. I didn't use it much personally 
(I was working on the Ada compiler), but we had extensive facilities to 
interface to the C compiler which definitely used pointers at 9-bit bytes. 
(The machine was most efficient when used with 36-bit word addressing, which 
we used extensively in the Ada compiler, but the C-compiler used double-word 
pointers including a byte offset -- so we had to have conversion facilities 
to get back and forth).

Not sure of exactly what version of C that was, but surely well after "C was 
standardized".

                                  Randy.


0
randy42 (2049)
4/30/2011 4:36:16 AM
"Uno" <Uno@example.invalid> wrote in message news:91v675F30vU1@mid.individual.net...

| I'm dealing with this same issue in my real life, as my algebraist uncle
| seems to have early-onset alzheimer's.   So he has his demonstrable
| achievements in science and the last few years where he embarrassed himself.
|
| George's C was atrocious at the end.  I'd like to let that die.

You might not have liked George's programming style,
but there is no suggestion that he was losing it.

| A kiss is a kiss; it's simple, effective, and not improved by
| redefinition when you've lost your marbles. 


0
robin512 (311)
4/30/2011 10:48:48 AM
Le 30/04/11 00:45, Seebs a �crit :
> On 2011-04-29, Keith Thompson<kst-u@mib.org>  wrote:
>> Certainly CHAR_BIT *could* be 64 (or even more), but I've never heard
>> of a 64-bit system with CHAR_BIT==64.  Such an implementation would
>> have trouble dealing with octet-oriented data from other systems.
>
> I've heard of at least one system where sizeof(int64_t) was 1,

This is internet in all its beauty:

(1) He has "heared" of at least one system...
(2) The "system" is not named, nor identified even in a remote sense

> but I'm not
> sure what range of values was allowed in chars.  Presumably unsigned char
> was 0..2^64-1.
>

Presumably (of course) the system in question used 64 bits for
character data. VERY efficient.

> It was also a LONG time ago, and may not have been standard C.

People tell stories because it is so easy to start them...
Nobody will complain.


0
jacob31 (877)
4/30/2011 11:39:56 AM
jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:
> Le 30/04/11 00:45, Seebs a écrit :
>> On 2011-04-29, Keith Thompson<kst-u@mib.org>  wrote:
>>> Certainly CHAR_BIT *could* be 64 (or even more), but I've never heard
>>> of a 64-bit system with CHAR_BIT==64.  Such an implementation would
>>> have trouble dealing with octet-oriented data from other systems.
>>
>> I've heard of at least one system where sizeof(int64_t) was 1,
>
> This is internet in all its beauty:
>
> (1) He has "heared" of at least one system...
> (2) The "system" is not named, nor identified even in a remote sense

So what's the problem?  Perhaps someone else will remember more
about it, and we can all learn something.

>> but I'm not
>> sure what range of values was allowed in chars.  Presumably unsigned char
>> was 0..2^64-1.
>>
>
> Presumably (of course) the system in question used 64 bits for
> character data. VERY efficient.

Presumably the system in question was not optimized for working
with character data.  I've mentioned the Cray T90 here before;
its use of software-defined byte pointers made character processing
extraordinarily inefficient, but it was blazingly fast on vectors
of 64-bit floating-point numbers, which is exactly what it was
designed for.  (And the front of the machine had a really cool
glassed-in Flourinert "waterfall".)

>> It was also a LONG time ago, and may not have been standard C.
>
> People tell stories because it is so easy to start them...
> Nobody will complain.

I can't think of any good reason why anybody should complain.

Note: This is cross-posted to sci.math and comp.lang.c.  I've
redirected followups just to comp.lang.c.  Feel free to restore
the cross-post if you think the sci.math folks would be interested.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
0
kst-u (21963)
4/30/2011 4:04:15 PM
On 4/27/2011 6:14 PM, robin wrote:
> "Uno"<merrilljensen@q.com>  wrote in message news:8bfh28Fve1U1@mid.individual.net...
> | robin wrote:
> |>  "jacob navia"<jacob@spamsink.net>  wrote in message news:i2fir2$op4$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> |>
> |>  | This doesn't work with systems that have unsigned long as a 64 bit quantity.
> |>  |
> |>  | I obtain:
> |>  |
> |>  |  MWC result=3740121002 ?
> |>  |             4169348530
> |>  | KISS result=2224631993 ?
> |>  |             1421918629
> |>
> |>  For a 64-bit machine (using 64-bit integer arithmetic),
> |>  you'd need to truncate each result to 32 bits.  That not
> |>  only applies to the multiplication, it also applies to addition, etc.
> |>  On a 32-bit machine, these extra bits are discarded,
> |>  but in 64-bit arithmetic, they are retained,
> |>  and unless they are similarly discarded,
> |>  you won't get the same results.
> |>  I suggest using IAND(k, 2*2147483647+1)
> |>  for the truncation.
> |>
> |>  With such modifications in the program,
> |>  it should then produce the same results on both 32-bit and
> |>  64-bit machines.

Here is a modification of the program with masking to produce correct results 
with any conforming C implementation.  It truncates where when required.  A good 
optimizer should eliminate the unneeded masking for 32-bit unsigned long.

static unsigned long xs = 521288629;
static unsigned long xcng = 362436069;
static unsigned long Q[4691];

#define M32 0xffffffff

unsigned long   MWC(void)
{
     static unsigned long c = 0;
     static unsigned long j = 4691;
     unsigned long   t;
     unsigned long   x;
     j = (j < 4690) ? j + 1 : 0;
     x = Q[j];
     t = ((x << 13) + c) & M32;
     if (t < c) {
         c = (x >> 19) + 1;
         t = (t + x) & M32;
     } else {
         t = (t + x) & M32;
         c = (x >> 19) + (t < x);
     }
     return (Q[j] = t);

}

void            initMWC(void)
{
     unsigned long   i;
     for (i = 0; i < sizeof Q / sizeof Q[0]; i++)
         Q[i] = ((xcng = 69069 * xcng + 123) + (xs = (xs ^ (xs << 13)) & M32,
                 xs ^= (xs >> 17), xs ^= (xs << 5))) & M32;

}

#ifdef UNIT_TEST

#include <stdio.h>

int             main()
{
     unsigned long   i;
     unsigned long   x;

     initMWC();

     printf("Does  MWC result=3740121002 ?\n");
     for (i = 0; i < 1000000000; i++)
         x = MWC();
     printf("%27u\n", x);

     printf("Does KISS result=2224631993 ?\n");
     for (i = 0; i < 1000000000; i++)
         x = (MWC() + (xcng = 69069 * xcng + 123) + (xs = (xs ^ (xs << 13)) & M32,
              xs ^= (xs >> 17), xs ^= (xs << 5)));
     printf("%27u\n", x);
     return 0;
}

#endif



-- 
Thad
0
ThadSmith (1280)
5/1/2011 3:31:11 PM
On 05/ 2/11 03:31 AM, Thad Smith wrote:
>
> Here is a modification of the program with masking to produce correct results
> with any conforming C implementation.  It truncates where when required.  A good
> optimizer should eliminate the unneeded masking for 32-bit unsigned long.

Why oh why can't people just use fixed width types?  What's the 
obsession with unsigned long and masking?

Add

#include <stdint.h>

change all references to "unsigned long" to uint32_t, remove all 
references to M32.

> static unsigned long xs = 521288629;
> static unsigned long xcng = 362436069;
> static unsigned long Q[4691];

> #define M32 0xffffffff
>
> unsigned long   MWC(void)
> {
>       static unsigned long c = 0;
>       static unsigned long j = 4691;
>       unsigned long   t;
>       unsigned long   x;
>       j = (j<  4690) ? j + 1 : 0;
>       x = Q[j];
>       t = ((x<<  13) + c)&  M32;
>       if (t<  c) {
>           c = (x>>  19) + 1;
>           t = (t + x)&  M32;
>       } else {
>           t = (t + x)&  M32;
>           c = (x>>  19) + (t<  x);
>       }
>       return (Q[j] = t);
>
> }
>
> void            initMWC(void)
> {
>       unsigned long   i;
>       for (i = 0; i<  sizeof Q / sizeof Q[0]; i++)
>           Q[i] = ((xcng = 69069 * xcng + 123) + (xs = (xs ^ (xs<<  13))&  M32,
>                   xs ^= (xs>>  17), xs ^= (xs<<  5)))&  M32;
>
> }
>
> #ifdef UNIT_TEST
>
> #include<stdio.h>
>
> int             main()
> {
>       unsigned long   i;
>       unsigned long   x;
>
>       initMWC();
>
>       printf("Does  MWC result=3740121002 ?\n");
>       for (i = 0; i<  1000000000; i++)
>           x = MWC();
>       printf("%27u\n", x);
>
>       printf("Does KISS result=2224631993 ?\n");
>       for (i = 0; i<  1000000000; i++)
>           x = (MWC() + (xcng = 69069 * xcng + 123) + (xs = (xs ^ (xs<<  13))&  M32,
>                xs ^= (xs>>  17), xs ^= (xs<<  5)));
>       printf("%27u\n", x);
>       return 0;
> }
>
> #endif
>
>
>


-- 
Ian Collins
0
ian-news (10155)
5/1/2011 7:58:10 PM
On 05/01/2011 03:58 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 05/ 2/11 03:31 AM, Thad Smith wrote:
>>
>> Here is a modification of the program with masking to produce correct results
>> with any conforming C implementation.  It truncates where when required.  A good
>> optimizer should eliminate the unneeded masking for 32-bit unsigned long.
> 
> Why oh why can't people just use fixed width types?

Because, in C at least, it's not mandatory for a conforming
implementation to support any of the fixed-width types.

-- 
James Kuyper
0
jameskuyper (5635)
5/2/2011 12:01:56 AM
On 05/ 2/11 12:01 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 05/01/2011 03:58 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 05/ 2/11 03:31 AM, Thad Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is a modification of the program with masking to produce correct results
>>> with any conforming C implementation.  It truncates where when required.  A good
>>> optimizer should eliminate the unneeded masking for 32-bit unsigned long.
>>
>> Why oh why can't people just use fixed width types?
>
> Because, in C at least, it's not mandatory for a conforming
> implementation to support any of the fixed-width types.

But it's hardly rocket science to declare them for implementations that 
lack them.

-- 
Ian Collins
0
ian-news (10155)
5/2/2011 12:42:32 AM
On 05/01/2011 08:42 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 05/ 2/11 12:01 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 05/01/2011 03:58 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> On 05/ 2/11 03:31 AM, Thad Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here is a modification of the program with masking to produce correct results
>>>> with any conforming C implementation.  It truncates where when required.  A good
>>>> optimizer should eliminate the unneeded masking for 32-bit unsigned long.
>>>
>>> Why oh why can't people just use fixed width types?
>>
>> Because, in C at least, it's not mandatory for a conforming
>> implementation to support any of the fixed-width types.
> 
> But it's hardly rocket science to declare them for implementations that 
> lack them.

More accurately, it's generally impossible to declare them for
implementations that lack them. If the implementation choses not to
provide a particular fixed-width type, it's generally because it's not
possible to do so on that platform; less frequently, it's because it
would be inconvenient to support them.

-- 
James Kuyper
0
jameskuyper (5635)
5/2/2011 2:34:01 AM
In comp.lang.fortran Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote:

(snip, someone wrote)
>> Because, in C at least, it's not mandatory for a conforming
>> implementation to support any of the fixed-width types.
 
> But it's hardly rocket science to declare them for implementations that 
> lack them.

With the assumption that the fixed-width is one implemented on
the host machine.  Neither Fortran nor C require a machine to
support a 32 bit type.  (Java does.)

-- glen
0
gah (12851)
5/2/2011 2:50:14 AM
On 5/1/2011 12:58 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 05/ 2/11 03:31 AM, Thad Smith wrote:
>>
>> Here is a modification of the program with masking to produce correct results
>> with any conforming C implementation. It truncates where when required. A good
>> optimizer should eliminate the unneeded masking for 32-bit unsigned long.
>
> Why oh why can't people just use fixed width types? What's the obsession with
> unsigned long and masking?

In my case, I work with a lot of compilers not supporting C99.  The code is thus 
more portable to existing applications.  Standard C doesn't guarantee the 
existence of a 32-bit integer type.

-- 
Thad
0
ThadSmith (1280)
5/2/2011 4:21:04 AM
In article <4dbe2304$0$12961$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>,
Thad Smith  <ThadSmith@acm.org> wrote:
>On 5/1/2011 12:58 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 05/ 2/11 03:31 AM, Thad Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is a modification of the program with masking to produce correct results
>>> with any conforming C implementation. It truncates where when required. A good
>>> optimizer should eliminate the unneeded masking for 32-bit unsigned long.
>>
>> Why oh why can't people just use fixed width types? What's the obsession with
>> unsigned long and masking?
>
>In my case, I work with a lot of compilers not supporting C99.  The code is thus 
>more portable to existing applications.  Standard C doesn't guarantee the 
>existence of a 32-bit integer type.

As those of us with significant experience of portability will
remember, building fixed sizes into a program is a cardinal
error.  Sooner or later, you will want to run that code on a
system with different sizes, and it won't work.  The vast
majority of clean programs, even in C90, needed NO source
changes to go from 32 to 64 bits; I have written code that was
moved to systems with 16, 24, 32, 36, 48, 60, 64 and perhaps
other sizes, and so have many other people.

I accept that Marsaglia's generator is a valid case for using
fixed-width types, but that is likely to make it very inefficient
indeed on a system where they are not natural.  Masking is a
far more portably efficient approach.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
0
nmm12 (1380)
5/2/2011 7:31:20 AM
Navia wrote: [snip pointless bile]

Most of your posts are such a waste of bandwidth...

Back into the bit bucket you go. No soup for you!!
0
Noob
5/2/2011 9:26:46 AM
On 04/30/2011 04:48 AM, robin wrote:

> You might not have liked George's programming style,
> but there is no suggestion that he was losing it.

If no one has suggested it, then I do so herewith.  What proof do you 
need?  (That the guy died?)

I'm not a stranger to numbers or C.  It's not "potentially top-ranked" 
so much as "rank."

I apologize to those I might offend with such rhetoric.  His 
acknowledged contributions to computer science live on.
- -
Uno

0
Uno (113)
5/5/2011 1:12:40 AM
In article <lnoc3ox2a0.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:

> Making CHAR_BIT==64 would have made much more sense for the machine
> itself in isolation, but it would have made interoperability with
> other systems quite difficult.  It ran Unicos, Cray's BSDish Unix;
> I'm not sure you can even implement Unix with bytes bigger than
> 8 bits.

Could tack on a satellite machine for interoperability
the way ARPANET was first configured. Each big machine
at Illinois, etc. had a Burroughs (6600?) that actually
did the networking.

-- 
Michael Press
0
rubrum (248)
5/5/2011 11:38:16 PM
On 4/28/2011 8:09 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/29/11 03:01 PM, Eric Sosman wrote:
>> On 4/28/2011 10:09 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> On 04/29/11 01:50 PM, David Bernier wrote:
>>
>>>> In any case, with an executable compiled with a C compiler,
>>>> there's the function sizeof, which might be useful
>>>> in some cases at run time.
>>>
>>> Being pedantic, sizeof is a compile time operator when used with
>>> integral types.
>>
>> It's an operator, always. It's evaluable at compile time for
>> any operand, integral or not, except a variable-length array (whose
>> element count is not determined until run time).
>
> The context was integral types, I didn't want to venture anywhere near
> VLAs on a cross-post!
>

So Ian,

I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts about corruption and empires.  Are 
they the same thing?

But to be topical, I thought I might re-write george in fortran, using 
the ISO_C_BINDING.

Attended the first funeral after my dad's today.
-- 
Uno
0
Uno
5/8/2011 7:34:18 AM
On 05/08/2011 01:34 AM, Uno wrote:
> On 4/28/2011 8:09 PM, Ian Collins wrote:

>> The context was integral types, I didn't want to venture anywhere near
>> VLAs on a cross-post!
>>
>
> So Ian,
>
> I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts about corruption and empires. Are
> they the same thing?
>
> But to be topical, I thought I might re-write george in fortran, using
> the ISO_C_BINDING.
>
> Attended the first funeral after my dad's today.

Oh my goodness, you can't re-write george in these here united states.
-- 
mz
0
marni (1)
5/11/2011 5:38:50 AM
<nmm1@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:iplmk8$2s6$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk...

| As those of us with significant experience of portability will
| remember, building fixed sizes into a program is a cardinal
| error.  Sooner or later, you will want to run that code on a
| system with different sizes, and it won't work.

That's because FORTRAN was designed around a word machine,
where float precisions offered were either single and double precision.
That could cause different actions when moving from a 32-bit word machine
to 60/64-bit word machine,

Later languages, including PL/I, were designed around
byte machines.  The way in which float precisions are specified
lends itself to portability.  Thus, asking for say, 12 decimal digits
got you about that number of digits, whether the machine offered
32-bit or 60-bit words.  Some machines actually offered decimal
(BCD) floats in hardware,* and asking for 12 decimals got you about
that number of digits.

|  The vast
| majority of clean programs, even in C90, needed NO source
| changes to go from 32 to 64 bits; I have written code that was
| moved to systems with 16, 24, 32, 36, 48, 60, 64 and perhaps
| other sizes, and so have many other people.

Indeed.  (Including doing portable character handling before F77.)

| I accept that Marsaglia's generator is a valid case for using
| fixed-width types, but that is likely to make it very inefficient
| indeed on a system where they are not natural.

I very much doubt that any new machine is going to offer less than 32 bit
integer words ; for some years now the trend has been to machines of
64-bit integers.  Marsaglia's (integer) algorithms will run on such machines,
some possibly with minor alterations, but will not, even if modified,
will not run "inefficiently".

|  Masking is a
| far more portably efficient approach.

_______________
* some still do, in an updated verion of decimal. 


0
robin512 (311)
5/23/2011 4:18:17 AM
<nmm1@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:iplmk8$2s6$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk...

| As those of us with significant experience of portability will
| remember, building fixed sizes into a program is a cardinal
| error.  Sooner or later, you will want to run that code on a
| system with different sizes, and it won't work.

That's because FORTRAN was designed around a word machine,
where float precisions offered were single and/or single and double precision.
That could cause different actions when moving from a 32-bit word machine
to 60/64-bit word machine,

Later languages, including PL/I, were designed bearing in mind
byte machines.  The way in which float precisions are specified
lends itself to portability.  Thus, asking for say, 12 decimal digits
got you about that number of digits, whether the machine offered
32-bit or 60-bit words.  Some machines actually offered decimal
(BCD) floats in hardware,* and asking for 12 decimals got you about
that number of digits.

|  The vast
| majority of clean programs, even in C90, needed NO source
| changes to go from 32 to 64 bits; I have written code that was
| moved to systems with 16, 24, 32, 36, 48, 60, 64 and perhaps
| other sizes, and so have many other people.

Indeed.  (Including doing portable character handling before F77.)

| I accept that Marsaglia's generator is a valid case for using
| fixed-width types, but that is likely to make it very inefficient
| indeed on a system where they are not natural.

I very much doubt that any new machine is going to offer less than 32 bit
integer words ; for some years now the trend has been to machines of
64-bit integers.  Marsaglia's (integer) algorithms will run on such machines,
some possibly with minor alterations, but will not, even if modified,
will not run "inefficiently".

|  Masking is a
| far more portably efficient approach.

_______________
* some still do, in an updated verion of decimal. 


0
robin512 (311)
5/23/2011 6:52:16 AM
<nmm1@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:iplmk8$2s6$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk...

| As those of us with significant experience of portability will
| remember, building fixed sizes into a program is a cardinal
| error.  Sooner or later, you will want to run that code on a
| system with different sizes, and it won't work.

That's because FORTRAN was designed around a word machine,
where float precisions offered were single and/or single and double precision.
That could cause different actions when moving from a 32-bit word machine
to 60/64-bit word machine,

Later languages, including PL/I, were designed bearing in mind
byte machines.  The way in which float precisions are specified
lends itself to portability.  Thus, asking for say, 12 decimal digits
got you about that number of digits, whether the machine offered
32-bit or 60-bit words.  Some machines actually offered decimal
(BCD) floats in hardware,* and asking for 12 decimals got you about
that number of digits.

|  The vast
| majority of clean programs, even in C90, needed NO source
| changes to go from 32 to 64 bits; I have written code that was
| moved to systems with 16, 24, 32, 36, 48, 60, 64 and perhaps
| other sizes, and so have many other people.

Indeed.  (Including doing portable character handling before F77.)

| I accept that Marsaglia's generator is a valid case for using
| fixed-width types, but that is likely to make it very inefficient
| indeed on a system where they are not natural.

I very much doubt that any new machine is going to offer less than 32 bit
integer words ; for some years now the trend has been to machines of
64-bit integers.  Marsaglia's (integer) algorithms will run on such machines,
some possibly with minor alterations, but will not, even if modified,
will not run "inefficiently".

|  Masking is a
| far more portably efficient approach.

_______________
* some still do, in an updated verion of decimal. 


0
robin512 (311)
5/23/2011 6:52:22 AM
<nmm1@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:iplmk8$2s6$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk...

| As those of us with significant experience of portability will
| remember, building fixed sizes into a program is a cardinal
| error.  Sooner or later, you will want to run that code on a
| system with different sizes, and it won't work.

That's because FORTRAN was designed around a word machine,
where float precisions offered were single and/or single and double precision.
That could cause different actions when moving from a 32-bit word machine
to 60/64-bit word machine,

Later languages, including PL/I, were designed bearing in mind
byte machines.  The way in which float precisions are specified
lends itself to portability.  Thus, asking for say, 12 decimal digits
got you about that number of digits, whether the machine offered
32-bit or 60-bit words.  Some machines actually offered decimal
(BCD) floats in hardware,* and asking for 12 decimals got you about
that number of digits.

|  The vast
| majority of clean programs, even in C90, needed NO source
| changes to go from 32 to 64 bits; I have written code that was
| moved to systems with 16, 24, 32, 36, 48, 60, 64 and perhaps
| other sizes, and so have many other people.

Indeed.  (Including doing portable character handling before F77.)

| I accept that Marsaglia's generator is a valid case for using
| fixed-width types, but that is likely to make it very inefficient
| indeed on a system where they are not natural.

I very much doubt that any new machine is going to offer less than 32 bit
integer words ; for some years now the trend has been to machines of
64-bit integers.  Marsaglia's (integer) algorithms will run on such machines,
some possibly with minor alterations, but will not, even if modified,
will not run "inefficiently".

|  Masking is a
| far more portably efficient approach.

_______________
* some still do, in an updated verion of decimal. 


0
robin512 (311)
5/23/2011 6:52:42 AM
<nmm1@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:iplmk8$2s6$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk...

| As those of us with significant experience of portability will
| remember, building fixed sizes into a program is a cardinal
| error.  Sooner or later, you will want to run that code on a
| system with different sizes, and it won't work.

That's because FORTRAN was designed around a word machine,
where float precisions offered were single and/or single and double precision.
That could cause different actions when moving from a 32-bit word machine
to 60/64-bit word machine,

Later languages, including PL/I, were designed bearing in mind
byte machines.  The way in which float precisions are specified
lends itself to portability.  Thus, asking for say, 12 decimal digits
got you about that number of digits, whether the machine offered
32-bit or 60-bit words.  Some machines actually offered decimal
(BCD) floats in hardware,* and asking for 12 decimals got you about
that number of digits.

|  The vast
| majority of clean programs, even in C90, needed NO source
| changes to go from 32 to 64 bits; I have written code that was
| moved to systems with 16, 24, 32, 36, 48, 60, 64 and perhaps
| other sizes, and so have many other people.

Indeed.  (Including doing portable character handling before F77.)

| I accept that Marsaglia's generator is a valid case for using
| fixed-width types, but that is likely to make it very inefficient
| indeed on a system where they are not natural.

I very much doubt that any new machine is going to offer less than 32 bit
integer words ; for some years now the trend has been to machines of
64-bit integers.  Marsaglia's (integer) algorithms will run on such machines,
some possibly with minor alterations, but will not, even if modified,
will not run "inefficiently".

|  Masking is a
| far more portably efficient approach.

_______________
* some still do, in an updated verion of decimal. 


0
robin512 (311)
5/23/2011 6:53:47 AM
On 5/23/11 8:53 AM, robin wrote:
> <nmm1@cam.ac.uk>  wrote in message news:iplmk8$2s6$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk...

> | I accept that Marsaglia's generator is a valid case for using
> | fixed-width types, but that is likely to make it very inefficient
> | indeed on a system where they are not natural.
>
> I very much doubt that any new machine is going to offer less than 32 bit
> integer words ; for some years now the trend has been to machines of
> 64-bit integers.

Not sure about the kind and specifics of technical systems in which
number generation plays a part.

But in case it does matter in computers embedded in  other
systems: the number of <32bit microcontrollers exceeds
the number of >=32bit processors built into PCs and
mobile computers (including "cellphones").

According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
of 8bit µcontrollers is more than a half. (They give sources for
the numbers.)

TTBOMK, it is very common that C compilers for 8bit
µcontrollers will offer int as a 16bit type.

0
5/23/2011 7:16:26 AM
"robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> wrote in message news:4dda042b$1$67779$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net...

Looks like ISP server's malfunctioned again. 


0
robin512 (311)
5/23/2011 7:20:28 AM
On 2011-05-23 02:52:16 -0400, robin said:

> <nmm1@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:iplmk8$2s6$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk...
> 
> | As those of us with significant experience of portability will
> | remember, building fixed sizes into a program is a cardinal
> | error.  Sooner or later, you will want to run that code on a
> | system with different sizes, and it won't work.
> 
> That's because FORTRAN was designed around a word machine,
> where float precisions offered were single and/or single and double precision.
> That could cause different actions when moving from a 32-bit word machine
> to 60/64-bit word machine,
> 
> Later languages, including PL/I,

Why not just say "PL/I and Ada"? It's much shorter.

> were designed bearing in mind
> byte machines.

What have bytes to do with it? Except for Intel's nonstandard 10-byte 
format, virtually all hardware today offers floating-point in standard 
word-based units, usually 32, 64, or 128 bits, just as the S/360 did. 
(There’s also a 16-bit input format.)

>   The way in which float precisions are specified
> lends itself to portability.  Thus, asking for say, 12 decimal digits
> got you about that number of digits, whether the machine offered
> 32-bit or 60-bit words.  Some machines actually offered decimal
> (BCD) floats in hardware,* and asking for 12 decimals got you about
> that number of digits.

Not always BCD. The IBM 650 used biquinary, the follow-on 707x series 
used two-out-of-five code, and NORC used excess-three. And modern 
hardware uses dense packing (three decimal digits in ten bits). 
(However, the original definition of ROUND in PL/I assumed that all 
floating point was really binary, or, just perhaps, BCD.)

> I very much doubt that any new machine is going to offer less than 32 bit
> integer words ; for some years now the trend has been to machines of
> 64-bit integers.

However, in the x86 world, "word" is /defined/ as 16 bits, and in the 
z/Series, as 32 bits, no matter the address width, and no matter the 
fetch width.

-- 
John W Kennedy
"There are those who argue that everything breaks even in this old dump 
of a world of ours. I suppose these ginks who argue that way hold that 
because the rich man gets ice in the summer and the poor man gets it in 
the winter things are breaking even for both. Maybe so, but I'll swear 
I can't see it that way."
  -- The last words of Bat Masterson

0
jwkenne (1442)
5/23/2011 6:06:40 PM
"John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:4ddaa230$0$31284$607ed4bc@cv.net...
| On 2011-05-23 02:52:16 -0400, robin said:
|
| > <nmm1@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:iplmk8$2s6$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk...
| >
| > | As those of us with significant experience of portability will
| > | remember, building fixed sizes into a program is a cardinal
| > | error.  Sooner or later, you will want to run that code on a
| > | system with different sizes, and it won't work.
| >
| > That's because FORTRAN was designed around a word machine,
| > where float precisions offered were single and/or single and double precision.
| > That could cause different actions when moving from a 32-bit word machine
| > to 60/64-bit word machine,
| >
| > Later languages, including PL/I,
|
| Why not just say "PL/I and Ada"? It's much shorter.
|
| > were designed bearing in mind
| > byte machines.
|
| What have bytes to do with it? Except for Intel's nonstandard 10-byte

It's been the standard for how many years?  20 now?

| format, virtually all hardware today offers floating-point in standard
| word-based units, usually 32, 64, or 128 bits, just as the S/360 did.

and 80-bit (= 10 byte).
And recently a new form of decimal float.

| (There's also a 16-bit input format.)

| >   The way in which float precisions are specified
| > lends itself to portability.  Thus, asking for say, 12 decimal digits
| > got you about that number of digits, whether the machine offered
| > 32-bit or 60-bit words.  Some machines actually offered decimal
| > (BCD) floats in hardware,* and asking for 12 decimals got you about
| > that number of digits.
|
| Not always BCD.

did I say it was?  No.

| The IBM 650 used biquinary, the follow-on 707x series
| used two-out-of-five code, and NORC used excess-three. And modern
| hardware uses dense packing (three decimal digits in ten bits).

That's irrelevant.

| (However, the original definition of ROUND in PL/I assumed that all
| floating point was really binary, or, just perhaps, BCD.)

The ROUNDDEC function deals with decimal float.

| > I very much doubt that any new machine is going to offer less than 32 bit
| > integer words ; for some years now the trend has been to machines of
| > 64-bit integers.
|
| However, in the x86 world, "word" is /defined/ as 16 bits,

Which is irrelevant.

| and in the
| z/Series, as 32 bits, no matter the address width, and no matter the
| fetch width.

A "word" is whatever is convenient for the designer of the hardware.
It's irrelevant as far as language design is concerned. 


0
robin512 (311)
5/24/2011 12:42:22 PM
On 2011-05-24 08:42:22 -0400, robin said:

> "John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message 
> news:4ddaa230$0$31284$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> | On 2011-05-23 02:52:16 -0400, robin said:
> |
> | > <nmm1@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:iplmk8$2s6$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk...
> | >
> | > | As those of us with significant experience of portability will
> | > | remember, building fixed sizes into a program is a cardinal
> | > | error.  Sooner or later, you will want to run that code on a
> | > | system with different sizes, and it won't work.
> | >
> | > That's because FORTRAN was designed around a word machine,
> | > where float precisions offered were single and/or single and double 
> precision.
> | > That could cause different actions when moving from a 32-bit word machine
> | > to 60/64-bit word machine,
> | >
> | > Later languages, including PL/I,
> |
> | Why not just say "PL/I and Ada"? It's much shorter.
> |
> | > were designed bearing in mind
> | > byte machines.
> |
> | What have bytes to do with it? Except for Intel's nonstandard 10-byte
> 
> It's been the standard for how many years?  20 now?

To the best of my knowledge, Intel's 10-byte format is not and never 
has been a standard. It is certainly not part of IEEE-754-1985 or 
IEEE-754-2008.

> | format, virtually all hardware today offers floating-point in standard
> | word-based units, usually 32, 64, or 128 bits, just as the S/360 did.
> 
> and 80-bit (= 10 byte).
> And recently a new form of decimal float.
> 
> | (There's also a 16-bit input format.)
> 
> | >   The way in which float precisions are specified
> | > lends itself to portability.  Thus, asking for say, 12 decimal digits
> | > got you about that number of digits, whether the machine offered
> | > 32-bit or 60-bit words.  Some machines actually offered decimal
> | > (BCD) floats in hardware,* and asking for 12 decimals got you about
> | > that number of digits.
> |
> | Not always BCD.
> 
> did I say it was?  No.

Yes, you did, according to the normal rules of English prose. If you 
meant "e.g.", or "such as", you should have said so.

> | The IBM 650 used biquinary, the follow-on 707x series
> | used two-out-of-five code, and NORC used excess-three. And modern
> | hardware uses dense packing (three decimal digits in ten bits).
> 
> That's irrelevant.

It is relevant to your careless mistake.

> | (However, the original definition of ROUND in PL/I assumed that all
> | floating point was really binary, or, just perhaps, BCD.)
> 
> The ROUNDDEC function deals with decimal float.

What part of "original definition of ROUND" didn't you understand?

> | > I very much doubt that any new machine is going to offer less than 32 bit
> | > integer words ; for some years now the trend has been to machines of
> | > 64-bit integers.
> |
> | However, in the x86 world, "word" is /defined/ as 16 bits,
> 
> Which is irrelevant.

It is relevant to your careless use of the word "word" without defining 
it. (And, no you can't claim that it doesn't matter because "obviously" 
you were talking about floating point, because you used integers as an 
illustation.)

> | and in the
> | z/Series, as 32 bits, no matter the address width, and no matter the
> | fetch width.
> 
> A "word" is whatever is convenient for the designer of the hardware.
> It's irrelevant as far as language design is concerned.

And how many non-assembler languages employ the word "word" in their 
definitions?

-- 
John W Kennedy
"Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the 
obeisance of others!  Thus is bad government born!  Hold in your heart 
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government 
shall arise of its own accord!  Such is the path of virtue!"
  -- Kazuo Koike.  "Lone Wolf and Cub:  Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)

0
jwkenne (1442)
5/24/2011 4:06:53 PM
John W Kennedy <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote:

(snip, two people wrote)
>> | What have bytes to do with it? Except for Intel's nonstandard 10-byte
 
>> It's been the standard for how many years?  20 now?
 
> To the best of my knowledge, Intel's 10-byte format is not and never 
> has been a standard. It is certainly not part of IEEE-754-1985 or 
> IEEE-754-2008.

I believe that there is some suggestion on using a form longer
than double for intermediate values, but not a standard format.

As the standard isn't free, I can't look it up.  I don't see
it described in the wikipedia entries.

IEEE 754-2008 has standard quad precision forms, both binary
and decimal.

-- glen
0
gah (12851)
5/24/2011 9:58:53 PM
"John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:4ddbd79d$0$31304$607ed4bc@cv.net...
| On 2011-05-24 08:42:22 -0400, robin said:
|
| > "John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message
| > news:4ddaa230$0$31284$607ed4bc@cv.net...
| > | On 2011-05-23 02:52:16 -0400, robin said:
| > |
| > | > <nmm1@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:iplmk8$2s6$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk...
| > | >
| > | > | As those of us with significant experience of portability will
| > | > | remember, building fixed sizes into a program is a cardinal
| > | > | error.  Sooner or later, you will want to run that code on a
| > | > | system with different sizes, and it won't work.
| > | >
| > | > That's because FORTRAN was designed around a word machine,
| > | > where float precisions offered were single and/or single and double
| > precision.
| > | > That could cause different actions when moving from a 32-bit word machine
| > | > to 60/64-bit word machine,
| > | >
| > | > Later languages, including PL/I,
| > |
| > | Why not just say "PL/I and Ada"? It's much shorter.
| > |
| > | > were designed bearing in mind
| > | > byte machines.
| > |
| > | What have bytes to do with it? Except for Intel's nonstandard 10-byte
| >
| > It's been the standard for how many years?  20 now?
|
| To the best of my knowledge, Intel's 10-byte format is not and never
| has been a standard. It is certainly not part of IEEE-754-1985 or
| IEEE-754-2008.

No-one said it was.
However, as it's been available on pretty well most IBM type PCs
for two decades, it is a de facto standard.

| > | format, virtually all hardware today offers floating-point in standard
| > | word-based units, usually 32, 64, or 128 bits, just as the S/360 did.
| >
| > and 80-bit (= 10 byte).
| > And recently a new form of decimal float.
| >
| > | (There's also a 16-bit input format.)
| >
| > | >   The way in which float precisions are specified
| > | > lends itself to portability.  Thus, asking for say, 12 decimal digits
| > | > got you about that number of digits, whether the machine offered
| > | > 32-bit or 60-bit words.  Some machines actually offered decimal
| > | > (BCD) floats in hardware,* and asking for 12 decimals got you about
| > | > that number of digits.
| > |
| > | Not always BCD.
| >
| > did I say it was?  No.
|
| Yes, you did, according to the normal rules of English prose. If you
| meant "e.g.", or "such as", you should have said so.

I said "SOME repeat SOME machines ... offered (BCD floats ..." (emphasis added)

| > | The IBM 650 used biquinary, the follow-on 707x series
| > | used two-out-of-five code, and NORC used excess-three. And modern
| > | hardware uses dense packing (three decimal digits in ten bits).
| >
| > That's irrelevant.
|
| It is relevant to your careless mistake.

I made no mistake.

| > | (However, the original definition of ROUND in PL/I assumed that all
| > | floating point was really binary, or, just perhaps, BCD.)
| >
| > The ROUNDDEC function deals with decimal float.
|
| What part of "original definition of ROUND" didn't you understand?

What part didn't youuinderstand?

| > | > I very much doubt that any new machine is going to offer less than 32 bit
| > | > integer words ; for some years now the trend has been to machines of
| > | > 64-bit integers.
| > |
| > | However, in the x86 world, "word" is /defined/ as 16 bits,
| >
| > Which is irrelevant.
|
| It is relevant to your careless use of the word "word" without defining
| it.

A word means almost anything, as I indicated in the previous post. I don't have to define it.

| > | and in the
| > | z/Series, as 32 bits, no matter the address width, and no matter the
| > | fetch width.
| >
| > A "word" is whatever is convenient for the designer of the hardware.
| > It's irrelevant as far as language design is concerned.
|
| And how many non-assembler languages employ the word "word" in their
| definitions?

You should ask something that's relevant. 


0
robin512 (311)
5/25/2011 1:00:50 PM
On 2011-05-25 09:00:50 -0400, robin said:

> "John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message 
> news:4ddbd79d$0$31304$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> | On 2011-05-24 08:42:22 -0400, robin said:
> |
> | > "John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> | > news:4ddaa230$0$31284$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> | > | On 2011-05-23 02:52:16 -0400, robin said:
> | > |
> | > | > <nmm1@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message 
> news:iplmk8$2s6$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk...
> | > | >
> | > | > | As those of us with significant experience of portability will
> | > | > | remember, building fixed sizes into a program is a cardinal
> | > | > | error.  Sooner or later, you will want to run that code on a
> | > | > | system with different sizes, and it won't work.
> | > | >
> | > | > That's because FORTRAN was designed around a word machine,
> | > | > where float precisions offered were single and/or single and double
> | > precision.
> | > | > That could cause different actions when moving from a 32-bit 
> word machine
> | > | > to 60/64-bit word machine,
> | > | >
> | > | > Later languages, including PL/I,
> | > |
> | > | Why not just say "PL/I and Ada"? It's much shorter.
> | > |
> | > | > were designed bearing in mind
> | > | > byte machines.
> | > |
> | > | What have bytes to do with it? Except for Intel's nonstandard 10-byte
> | >
> | > It's been the standard for how many years?  20 now?
> |
> | To the best of my knowledge, Intel's 10-byte format is not and never
> | has been a standard. It is certainly not part of IEEE-754-1985 or
> | IEEE-754-2008.
> 
> No-one said it was.
> However, as it's been available on pretty well most IBM type PCs
> for two decades, it is a de facto standard.
> 
> | > | format, virtually all hardware today offers floating-point in standard
> | > | word-based units, usually 32, 64, or 128 bits, just as the S/360 did.
> | >
> | > and 80-bit (= 10 byte).
> | > And recently a new form of decimal float.
> | >
> | > | (There's also a 16-bit input format.)
> | >
> | > | >   The way in which float precisions are specified
> | > | > lends itself to portability.  Thus, asking for say, 12 decimal digits
> | > | > got you about that number of digits, whether the machine offered
> | > | > 32-bit or 60-bit words.  Some machines actually offered decimal
> | > | > (BCD) floats in hardware,* and asking for 12 decimals got you about
> | > | > that number of digits.
> | > |
> | > | Not always BCD.
> | >
> | > did I say it was?  No.
> |
> | Yes, you did, according to the normal rules of English prose. If you
> | meant "e.g.", or "such as", you should have said so.
> 
> I said "SOME repeat SOME machines ... offered (BCD floats ..." (emphasis added)

That's a lie, and you didn't even bother to alter the quote above that 
proves it's a lie.


> 
> | > | The IBM 650 used biquinary, the follow-on 707x series
> | > | used two-out-of-five code, and NORC used excess-three. And modern
> | > | hardware uses dense packing (three decimal digits in ten bits).
> | >
> | > That's irrelevant.
> |
> | It is relevant to your careless mistake.
> 
> I made no mistake.
> 
> | > | (However, the original definition of ROUND in PL/I assumed that all
> | > | floating point was really binary, or, just perhaps, BCD.)
> | >
> | > The ROUNDDEC function deals with decimal float.
> |
> | What part of "original definition of ROUND" didn't you understand?
> 
> What part didn't youuinderstand?

Are you claiming that the ROUND function, in the 60s and 70s, was 
defined in terms of the ROUNDDEC function, which didn't even exist at 
the time? Or are you simply spouting intentional gibberish?

> | > | > I very much doubt that any new machine is going to offer less 
> than 32 bit
> | > | > integer words ; for some years now the trend has been to machines of
> | > | > 64-bit integers.
> | > |
> | > | However, in the x86 world, "word" is /defined/ as 16 bits,
> | >
> | > Which is irrelevant.
> |
> | It is relevant to your careless use of the word "word" without defining
> | it.
> 
> A word means almost anything, as I indicated in the previous post. I 
> don't have to define it.

Let us all ring reason's knell; I'll begin it, -- ding, dong, bell.

> 
> | > | and in the
> | > | z/Series, as 32 bits, no matter the address width, and no matter the
> | > | fetch width.
> | >
> | > A "word" is whatever is convenient for the designer of the hardware.
> | > It's irrelevant as far as language design is concerned.
> |
> | And how many non-assembler languages employ the word "word" in their
> | definitions?
> 
> You should ask something that's relevant.

If it's irrelevant, then why were you talking about it in the first place?

-- 
John W Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://www.SKenSoftware.com/Double%20Falshood

0
jwkenne (1442)
5/25/2011 3:40:02 PM
On 2011-05-23, Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote:
>
> According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
> of 8bit µcontrollers is more than a half. (They give sources for
> the numbers.)
>
> TTBOMK, it is very common that C compilers for 8bit
> µcontrollers will offer int as a 16bit type.

In fact, I believe the C standard says that "int" must be at least 16
bits.

-- 
Ilmari Karonen
To reply by e-mail, please replace ".invalid" with ".net" in address.
0
usenet210 (9)
5/26/2011 10:06:50 PM
"John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:4ddd22d2$0$31285$607ed4bc@cv.net...
| On 2011-05-25 09:00:50 -0400, robin said:
|
| > "John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message
| > news:4ddbd79d$0$31304$607ed4bc@cv.net...
| > | On 2011-05-24 08:42:22 -0400, robin said:
| > |
| > | > "John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:4ddaa230$0$31284$607ed4bc@cv.net...
| > | > | On 2011-05-23 02:52:16 -0400, robin said:
| > | > |
| > | > | > <nmm1@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
| > news:iplmk8$2s6$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk...
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | As those of us with significant experience of portability will
| > | > | > | remember, building fixed sizes into a program is a cardinal
| > | > | > | error.  Sooner or later, you will want to run that code on a
| > | > | > | system with different sizes, and it won't work.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > That's because FORTRAN was designed around a word machine,
| > | > | > where float precisions offered were single and/or single and double
| > | > precision.
| > | > | > That could cause different actions when moving from a 32-bit
| > word machine
| > | > | > to 60/64-bit word machine,
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Later languages, including PL/I,
| > | > |
| > | > | Why not just say "PL/I and Ada"? It's much shorter.
| > | > |
| > | > | > were designed bearing in mind
| > | > | > byte machines.
| > | > |
| > | > | What have bytes to do with it? Except for Intel's nonstandard 10-byte
| > | >
| > | > It's been the standard for how many years?  20 now?
| > |
| > | To the best of my knowledge, Intel's 10-byte format is not and never
| > | has been a standard. It is certainly not part of IEEE-754-1985 or
| > | IEEE-754-2008.
| >
| > No-one said it was.
| > However, as it's been available on pretty well most IBM type PCs
| > for two decades, it is a de facto standard.
| >
| > | > | format, virtually all hardware today offers floating-point in standard
| > | > | word-based units, usually 32, 64, or 128 bits, just as the S/360 did.
| > | >
| > | > and 80-bit (= 10 byte).
| > | > And recently a new form of decimal float.
| > | >
| > | > | (There's also a 16-bit input format.)
| > | >
| > | > | >   The way in which float precisions are specified
| > | > | > lends itself to portability.  Thus, asking for say, 12 decimal digits
| > | > | > got you about that number of digits, whether the machine offered
| > | > | > 32-bit or 60-bit words.  Some machines actually offered decimal
| > | > | > (BCD) floats in hardware,* and asking for 12 decimals got you about
| > | > | > that number of digits.
| > | > |
| > | > | Not always BCD.
| > | >
| > | > did I say it was?  No.
| > |
| > | Yes, you did, according to the normal rules of English prose. If you
| > | meant "e.g.", or "such as", you should have said so.
| >
| > I said "SOME repeat SOME machines ... offered (BCD floats ..." (emphasis added)
|
| That's a lie, and you didn't even bother to alter the quote above that
| proves it's a lie.

You know what?  It's YOU who is the liar.
Here is what I wrote, again, without the emphasis this time:

"Some machines actually offered decimal (BCD) floats in hardware,"

What don't you understand about "SOME" ? 


0
robin512 (311)
5/31/2011 2:40:30 AM
On 2011-05-31 11:48:07 -0400, robin said:

> "John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message 
> news:4de50708$0$28682$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> | On 2011-05-30 22:40:30 -0400, robin said:
> |
> | > "John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> | > news:4ddd22d2$0$31285$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> | > | On 2011-05-25 09:00:50 -0400, robin said:
> | > |
> | > | > "John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> | > | > news:4ddbd79d$0$31304$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> | > | > | On 2011-05-24 08:42:22 -0400, robin said:
> | > | > |
> | > | > | > "John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> | > | > | > news:4ddaa230$0$31284$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> | > | > | > | On 2011-05-23 02:52:16 -0400, robin said:
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > <nmm1@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> | > | > news:iplmk8$2s6$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk...
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | As those of us with significant experience of 
> portability will
> | > | > | > | > | remember, building fixed sizes into a program is a cardinal
> | > | > | > | > | error.  Sooner or later, you will want to run that code on a
> | > | > | > | > | system with different sizes, and it won't work.
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > That's because FORTRAN was designed around a word machine,
> | > | > | > | > where float precisions offered were single and/or 
> single and double
> | > | > | > precision.
> | > | > | > | > That could cause different actions when moving from a 32-bit
> | > | > word machine
> | > | > | > | > to 60/64-bit word machine,
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > Later languages, including PL/I,
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | Why not just say "PL/I and Ada"? It's much shorter.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > were designed bearing in mind
> | > | > | > | > byte machines.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | What have bytes to do with it? Except for Intel's 
> nonstandard 10-byte
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > It's been the standard for how many years?  20 now?
> | > | > |
> | > | > | To the best of my knowledge, Intel's 10-byte format is not and never
> | > | > | has been a standard. It is certainly not part of IEEE-754-1985 or
> | > | > | IEEE-754-2008.
> | > | >
> | > | > No-one said it was.
> | > | > However, as it's been available on pretty well most IBM type PCs
> | > | > for two decades, it is a de facto standard.
> | > | >
> | > | > | > | format, virtually all hardware today offers floating-point in
> | > standard
> | > | > | > | word-based units, usually 32, 64, or 128 bits, just as 
> the S/360 did.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > and 80-bit (= 10 byte).
> | > | > | > And recently a new form of decimal float.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | (There's also a 16-bit input format.)
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | >   The way in which float precisions are specified
> | > | > | > | > lends itself to portability.  Thus, asking for say, 12
> | > decimal digits
> | > | > | > | > got you about that number of digits, whether the 
> machine offered
> | > | > | > | > 32-bit or 60-bit words.  Some machines actually offered decimal
> | > | > | > | > (BCD) floats in hardware,* and asking for 12 decimals 
> got you about
> | > | > | > | > that number of digits.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | Not always BCD.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > did I say it was?  No.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Yes, you did, according to the normal rules of English prose. If you
> | > | > | meant "e.g.", or "such as", you should have said so.
> | > | >
> | > | > I said "SOME repeat SOME machines ... offered (BCD floats ..."
> | > (emphasis added)
> | > |
> | > | That's a lie, and you didn't even bother to alter the quote above that
> | > | proves it's a lie.
> | >
> | > You know what?  It's YOU who is the liar.
> |
> | Without the word "decimal", the above quote continues to be dishonest.
> 
> The quotation HAS the word DECIMAL in it.  I reproduced the entire
> quote below.

Either you are lying again, or you have completely lost the thread. 
There is no "decimal" in "SOME repeat SOME machines ... offered (BCD 
floats ..."

> | > Here is what I wrote, again, without the emphasis this time:
> | >
> | > "Some machines actually offered decimal (BCD) floats in hardware,"
> | >
> | > What don't you understand about "SOME" ?
> |
> | What don't you understand about English grammar?
> 
> What don't you understand about the word DECIMAL in the above quote?
> 
> | "Some", in that
> | sentence, modifies "machines", not "BCD".
> 
> You are just being obstruse.

I wouldn't know whether I'm being "obstruse" (sic) or not, since you 
just made up the word.

> What don't you inderstand about "Some machines actually offered decimal 
> (BCD) ..."

I understand that, if it is to be interpreted as normal English, "BCD" 
is being given as a gloss for "decimal" -- which it isn't. In actual 
fact, I can think of only one IBM system that both used BCD decimal and 
implemented hardware in floating point, and that was the 1620 (plus the 
1710 and 1720, of course). All other IBM decimal floating-point systems 
that I can recall used some other coding. I am unfamiliar with other 
manufacturers.

-- 
John W Kennedy
"When a man contemplates forcing his own convictions down another man's 
throat, he is contemplating both an unchristian act and an act of 
treason to the United States."
  -- Joy Davidman, "Smoke on the Mountain"

0
jwkenne (1442)
5/31/2011 5:51:29 PM
On 2011-05-31 12:59:45 -0400, Peter Flass said:

> On 5/31/2011 11:19 AM, John W Kennedy wrote:
>> On 2011-05-30 22:40:30 -0400, robin said:
>> 
>>> "John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4ddd22d2$0$31285$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>>> | On 2011-05-25 09:00:50 -0400, robin said:
>>> |
>>> | > "John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> | > news:4ddbd79d$0$31304$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>>> | > | On 2011-05-24 08:42:22 -0400, robin said:
>>> | > |
>>> | > | > "John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> | > | > news:4ddaa230$0$31284$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>>> | > | > | On 2011-05-23 02:52:16 -0400, robin said:
>>> | > | > |
>>> | > | > | > <nmm1@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>> | > news:iplmk8$2s6$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk...
>>> | > | > | >
>>> | > | > | > | As those of us with significant experience of
>>> portability will
>>> | > | > | > | remember, building fixed sizes into a program is a cardinal
>>> | > | > | > | error. Sooner or later, you will want to run that code on a
>>> | > | > | > | system with different sizes, and it won't work.
>>> | > | > | >
>>> | > | > | > That's because FORTRAN was designed around a word machine,
>>> | > | > | > where float precisions offered were single and/or single
>>> and double
>>> | > | > precision.
>>> | > | > | > That could cause different actions when moving from a 32-bit
>>> | > word machine
>>> | > | > | > to 60/64-bit word machine,
>>> | > | > | >
>>> | > | > | > Later languages, including PL/I,
>>> | > | > |
>>> | > | > | Why not just say "PL/I and Ada"? It's much shorter.
>>> | > | > |
>>> | > | > | > were designed bearing in mind
>>> | > | > | > byte machines.
>>> | > | > |
>>> | > | > | What have bytes to do with it? Except for Intel's
>>> nonstandard 10-byte
>>> | > | >
>>> | > | > It's been the standard for how many years? 20 now?
>>> | > |
>>> | > | To the best of my knowledge, Intel's 10-byte format is not and
>>> never
>>> | > | has been a standard. It is certainly not part of IEEE-754-1985 or
>>> | > | IEEE-754-2008.
>>> | >
>>> | > No-one said it was.
>>> | > However, as it's been available on pretty well most IBM type PCs
>>> | > for two decades, it is a de facto standard.
>>> | >
>>> | > | > | format, virtually all hardware today offers floating-point
>>> in standard
>>> | > | > | word-based units, usually 32, 64, or 128 bits, just as the
>>> S/360 did.
>>> | > | >
>>> | > | > and 80-bit (= 10 byte).
>>> | > | > And recently a new form of decimal float.
>>> | > | >
>>> | > | > | (There's also a 16-bit input format.)
>>> | > | >
>>> | > | > | > The way in which float precisions are specified
>>> | > | > | > lends itself to portability. Thus, asking for say, 12
>>> decimal digits
>>> | > | > | > got you about that number of digits, whether the machine
>>> offered
>>> | > | > | > 32-bit or 60-bit words. Some machines actually offered
>>> decimal
>>> | > | > | > (BCD) floats in hardware,* and asking for 12 decimals got
>>> you about
>>> | > | > | > that number of digits.
>>> | > | > |
>>> | > | > | Not always BCD.
>>> | > | >
>>> | > | > did I say it was? No.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Yes, you did, according to the normal rules of English prose. If
>>> you
>>> | > | meant "e.g.", or "such as", you should have said so.
>>> | >
>>> | > I said "SOME repeat SOME machines ... offered (BCD floats ..."
>>> (emphasis added)
>>> |
>>> | That's a lie, and you didn't even bother to alter the quote above that
>>> | proves it's a lie.
>>> 
>>> You know what? It's YOU who is the liar.
>> 
>> Without the word "decimal", the above quote continues to be dishonest.
>> 
>>> Here is what I wrote, again, without the emphasis this time:
>>> 
>>> "Some machines actually offered decimal (BCD) floats in hardware,"
>>> 
>>> What don't you understand about "SOME" ?
>> 
>> What don't you understand about English grammar? "Some", in that
>> sentence, modifies "machines", not "BCD". Even putting the best possible
>> construction on it, is is as fuddled as saying, "Not all cars are
>> Japanese, because some cars are American (General Motors)," or "Not all
>> movies are westerns, because some movies are science fiction (space
>> travel)."
>> 
> 
> I don't understand your argument.  Obviously those two sentences are 
> true.  You're proving something is false by pointing out one case where 
> it is false.

In order for them to be unexceptionable, they should have "e.g." or 
something similar in the parentheses. In Robin's original statement, 
the obvious reading is that "BCD" is a gloss indicating that "decimal" 
/means/ "BCD", and since Robin is at this point /assuming/ that the 
reader doesn't even know that there is such a thing as decimal floating 
point, it is irresponsible to write a sentence that obviously means 
something wrong, even if it can be forcibly construed to mean something 
else.

-- 
John W Kennedy
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts.  Only the heir to the throne 
of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts"
 -- J. Michael Straczynski.  "Babylon 5", "Ceremonies of Light and Dark"

0
jwkenne (1442)
5/31/2011 5:59:09 PM
"John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:4de52aa1$0$28679$607ed4bc@cv.net...
| On 2011-05-31 11:48:07 -0400, robin said:
|
| > "John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message
| > news:4de50708$0$28682$607ed4bc@cv.net...
| > | On 2011-05-30 22:40:30 -0400, robin said:
| > |
| > | > "John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:4ddd22d2$0$31285$607ed4bc@cv.net...
| > | > | On 2011-05-25 09:00:50 -0400, robin said:
| > | > Here is what I wrote, again, without the emphasis this time:
| > | >
| > | > "Some machines actually offered decimal (BCD) floats in hardware,"
| > | >
| > | > What don't you understand about "SOME" ?
| > |
| > | What don't you understand about English grammar?
| >
| > What don't you understand about the word DECIMAL in the above quote?
| >
| > | "Some", in that
| > | sentence, modifies "machines", not "BCD".
| >
| > You are just being obstruse.
|
| I wouldn't know whether I'm being "obstruse" (sic) or not, since you
| just made up the word.

Try "obtuse".

| > What don't you inderstand about "Some machines actually offered decimal
| > (BCD) ..."
|
| I understand that, if it is to be interpreted as normal English, "BCD"
| is being given as a gloss for "decimal" -- which it isn't.

From at least the mid 1960s, when the S/360 introduced decimal arithmetic
and its decimal instructions, the term "decimal" has been synonymous with
"Binary Coded Decimal".

| In actual
| fact, I can think of only one IBM system that both used BCD decimal

"BCD decimal"?  The means "Binary Coded Decimal decimal".
What do you mean by that?  That you don't uderstand what BCD means?

| and implemented hardware in floating point, and that was the 1620 (plus the
| 1710 and 1720, of course). All other IBM decimal floating-point systems
| that I can recall used some other coding. I am unfamiliar with other
| manufacturers. 


0
robin512 (311)
6/5/2011 11:17:40 AM
On 2011-06-05 07:17:40 -0400, robin said:
> From at least the mid 1960s, when the S/360 introduced decimal arithmetic
> and its decimal instructions, the term "decimal" has been synonymous with
> "Binary Coded Decimal".

A) The 360 did not introduce decimal arithmetic. The 
1401/1440/1460/1410/7010 line, the 305, the 650/7070/7072/7074 line, 
the 702/705/7080 line, the 1620/1710 line, and the 610 were all 
decimal, as was NORC. (In the interests of full disclosure, the 610 
also had an octal mode, specifically described as to be used to try out 
algorithms and check results for binary computers.) Only the 
701/704/709/7090/7094/7040/7044 line, the 7030, and SAGE (which IBM 
made, but did not design) were binary. And of those decimal systems, 
the 650 was biquinary, the 7070/7072/7074 series was two-of-five, and 
the NORC was excess-3.

B) Intel, for one (but maybe others, for aught I know to the contrary) 
uses "binary coded decimal" as an antonym to "packed decimal", even 
though both are "binary coded decimal" in a broader sense.

C) What has happened /since/ the 360 has no bearing on what happened 
/before/ the 360, which was the subject.

> | In actual
> | fact, I can think of only one IBM system that both used BCD decimal
> 
> "BCD decimal"?  The means "Binary Coded Decimal decimal".
> What do you mean by that?  That you don't uderstand what BCD means?

"BCD decimal" as opposed to the other sorts of decimal named above, moron.

> | and implemented hardware in floating point, and that was the 1620 (plus the
> | 1710 and 1720, of course). All other IBM decimal floating-point systems
> | that I can recall used some other coding. I am unfamiliar with other
> | manufacturers.


-- 
John W Kennedy
"Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the 
obeisance of others!  Thus is bad government born!  Hold in your heart 
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government 
shall arise of its own accord!  Such is the path of virtue!"
  -- Kazuo Koike.  "Lone Wolf and Cub:  Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)

0
jwkenne (1442)
6/5/2011 3:39:36 PM
"John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:4deba338$0$28701$607ed4bc@cv.net...
| On 2011-06-05 07:17:40 -0400, robin said:
| > From at least the mid 1960s, when the S/360 introduced decimal arithmetic
| > and its decimal instructions, the term "decimal" has been synonymous with
| > "Binary Coded Decimal".
|
| A) The 360 did not introduce decimal arithmetic.

I know that.
That's why I said "From at least".
The IBM 650 had VFL instructions.
I was pointing out that "decimal" has been synonymous with
"Binary Coded Decimal" since at least the S/360 line
(or perhaps you missed that too).

| The
| 1401/1440/1460/1410/7010 line, the 305, the 650/7070/7072/7074 line,
| the 702/705/7080 line, the 1620/1710 line, and the 610 were all
| decimal, as was NORC. (In the interests of full disclosure, the 610
| also had an octal mode, specifically described as to be used to try out
| algorithms and check results for binary computers.) Only the
| 701/704/709/7090/7094/7040/7044 line, the 7030, and SAGE (which IBM
| made, but did not design) were binary. And of those decimal systems,
| the 650 was biquinary, the 7070/7072/7074 series was two-of-five, and
| the NORC was excess-3.
|
| B) Intel, for one (but maybe others, for aught I know to the contrary)
| uses "binary coded decimal" as an antonym to "packed decimal", even
| though both are "binary coded decimal" in a broader sense.
|
| C) What has happened /since/ the 360 has no bearing on what happened
| /before/ the 360, which was the subject.
|
| > | In actual
| > | fact, I can think of only one IBM system that both used BCD decimal
| >
| > "BCD decimal"?  The means "Binary Coded Decimal decimal".
| > What do you mean by that?  That you don't uderstand what BCD means?
|
| "BCD decimal" as opposed to the other sorts of decimal named above, moron.

The only moron here is you, who still doesn't  get it.
I used "decimal (BCD)" to distinguish the decimal about which I was speaking
from the more recent DFP or decimal floating point. 


0
robin512 (311)
6/14/2011 5:05:06 AM
"Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message 
news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
|
| According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
| of 8bit �controllers is more than a half. (They give sources for
| the numbers.)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 


0
robin512 (311)
6/28/2011 7:19:35 AM
robin wrote:

> "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
> news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
> |
> | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
> | of 8bit =C2=B5controllers is more than a half. (They give sources fo=
r
> | the numbers.)
>
> Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

It's still right. A coffee-machine or toaster doesn't necessarily need
a 32-bit processor, so there are hell a lot of 8-bit micros still being
sold these days.


Vinzent.

-- =

f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgrmmng.
0
6/28/2011 8:44:03 AM
On 28.06.11 09:19, robin wrote:
> "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message 
> news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
> |
> | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
> | of 8bit µcontrollers is more than a half. (They give sources for
> | the numbers.)
> 
> Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 

They list their references, you didn't.

Or as Vincent explains, it takes just a moment of reflection to
learn about the number of devices and parts controlled
by µcontrollers whose words are sized < 32bit.
0
6/28/2011 9:14:56 AM
In message <op.vxr2jpt9lzeukk@jellix.jlfencey.com>, Vinzent Hoefler
<0439279208b62c95f1880bf0f8776eeb@t-domaingrabbing.de> writes
>robin wrote:
>
>> "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
>> news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
>> |
>> | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
>> | of 8bit 0 >> | the numbers.)
>>
>> Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
>
>It's still right. A coffee-machine or toaster doesn't necessarily need
>a 32-bit processor, so there are hell a lot of 8-bit micros still being
>sold these days.

Whilst wikipeadia is not accurate all the other figures I have seen*
showed that up until about 5 years ago 1 in 3 MCU's on the planet were
the 8 bit 8051 types.  Remember at one time every PC had at least two
8051's in it.

* Various sets of non public figures on industry surveys, also talking
to various silicon companies.

When the ARM parts arrived they hardly touched the 8 bit market but did
squeeze the 16 bit market.  The 16 bit market was small compared to  the
8 and 4 bit markets.

Yes there were (and still are) a lot of 4 bit micros used. AFAIK  the 4
bit market is not small as all sorts of things like toys use them.
However it is not growing.

The 8 bit market is declining but that is only very recently with the
advent of cheap cortex parts.  It is still large and the installed base
of parts is enormous.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



0
chris32 (3361)
6/28/2011 9:19:25 AM
In comp.lang.fortran Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:

(snip)
> Whilst wikipeadia is not accurate all the other figures I have seen*
> showed that up until about 5 years ago 1 in 3 MCU's on the planet were
> the 8 bit 8051 types.  Remember at one time every PC had at least two
> 8051's in it.

Last I knew they were the predecessors of the 8051, from the 
8048 series.

One in the keyboard to scan the keys, the other for I/O, on
the system board for, among other things, keyboard I/O.

If I remember it right, the original PC and XT used a more
traditional UART on board, with the 8048 in the keyboard.
The AT went for the 8048 on both ends.

Similar chips are popular in many toys.

-- glen
0
gah (12851)
6/28/2011 9:42:10 AM
"Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message 
news:4e099b90$0$6556$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
| On 28.06.11 09:19, robin wrote:
| > "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
| > news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
| > |
| > | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
| > | of 8bit �controllers is more than a half. (They give sources for
| > | the numbers.)
| >
| > Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
|
| They list their references, you didn't.

I've lost count of the number of times I've corrected incorrect
information in Wikipedia. 


0
robin512 (311)
6/28/2011 11:59:18 AM
In message <4e09c223$0$79555$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>, robin
<robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes
>"Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
>news:4e099b90$0$6556$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
>| On 28.06.11 09:19, robin wrote:
>| > "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
>| > news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
>| > |
>| > | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
>| > | of 8bit μcontrollers is more than a half. (They give sources for
>| > | the numbers.)
>| >
>| > Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
>|
>| They list their references, you didn't.
>
>I've lost count of the number of times I've corrected incorrect
>information in Wikipedia.

"But you would say that" :-)

And then some one else "corrects" your stuff.....  I personally have
seen the case where someone was "correcting" a page they had written
after the originator of the work on finding the wiki page had changed a
lot of the page to be accurate.

So even when some one who really knows corrects the Wiki there is no
guarantee that some idiot will not change it again.

Some companies, religions, pressure groups, political groups spend time
"correcting" wiki pages to reflect their views and "repairing" damaged
caused by vandals.... ie other companies, religions, pressure groups,
political groups spending time "correcting" wiki pages to reflect their
views



-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



0
chris32 (3361)
6/28/2011 12:16:44 PM
On 06/28/2011 03:19 AM, robin wrote:
> "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message 
> news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
> |
> | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
> | of 8bit �controllers is more than a half. (They give sources for
> | the numbers.)
> 
> Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 

Wikipedia is certainly not the most reliable source in the world, but
personally, I've found Wikipedia to be substantially more reliable than
any other information source that is comparably easy to access.

However, since that Wikipedia article (like most such articles) cites
sources for it's numbers, the reliability of Wikipedia is irrelevant;
what matters is the reliability of those sources. Have you anything
useful to say about that?

It's only worthwhile pointing out the unreliability of wikipedia if you
can identify a more reliable source.
-- 
James Kuyper
0
jameskuyper (5635)
6/28/2011 12:32:08 PM
On 06/28/2011 07:59 AM, robin wrote:
> "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message 
> news:4e099b90$0$6556$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
> | On 28.06.11 09:19, robin wrote:
> | > "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
> | > news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
> | > |
> | > | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
> | > | of 8bit �controllers is more than a half. (They give sources for
> | > | the numbers.)
> | >
> | > Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
> |
> | They list their references, you didn't.
> 
> I've lost count of the number of times I've corrected incorrect
> information in Wikipedia. 

Then go ahead and correct it: what do you claim to be the correct
numbers, and what are your sources for those numbers?
-- 
James Kuyper
0
jameskuyper (5635)
6/28/2011 12:33:33 PM
In message <iuchk8$gha$1@dont-email.me>, James Kuyper
<jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes
>On 06/28/2011 03:19 AM, robin wrote:
>> "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
>> news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
>> |
>> | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
>> | of 8bit 0 >> | the numbers.)
>>
>> Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
>
>Wikipedia is certainly not the most reliable source in the world, but
>personally, I've found Wikipedia to be substantially more reliable than
>any other information source that is comparably easy to access.


That is probably true... which is why people are manipulating it.

>It's only worthwhile pointing out the unreliability of wikipedia if you
>can identify a more reliable source.

That is not true.   Unreliable information should be removed if it is
wrong. Even if you don't have anything better. A blank screen is better
than an incorrect or misleading one.

We are drowning in a sea of unreliable information and complete
fabrications that people believe are true because no one challenges them
and people want easy access.



-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



0
chris32 (3361)
6/28/2011 1:03:20 PM
On 28.06.11 13:59, robin wrote:
> "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message 
> news:4e099b90$0$6556$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
> | On 28.06.11 09:19, robin wrote:
> | > "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
> | > news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
> | > |
> | > | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
> | > | of 8bit µcontrollers is more than a half. (They give sources for
> | > | the numbers.)
> | >
> | > Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
> |
> | They list their references, you didn't.
> 
> I've lost count of the number of times I've corrected incorrect
> information in Wikipedia. 

Are you saying that sources (about analysis of number of
processors sold) referenced on the current page are incorrect
and should not be referred to?
0
6/28/2011 1:53:53 PM
On 06/28/2011 09:03 AM, Chris H wrote:
> In message <iuchk8$gha$1@dont-email.me>, James Kuyper
> <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes
....
>> It's only worthwhile pointing out the unreliability of wikipedia if you
>> can identify a more reliable source.
> 
> That is not true.   Unreliable information should be removed if it is
> wrong.

If you are justified in your belief that something is wrong, you will
have an alternative source that you consider more reliable. If so, you
should cite it; without such a citation, other people cannot judge the
accuracy of your belief that it is, in fact, a more reliable source.
-- 
James Kuyper
0
jameskuyper (5635)
6/28/2011 2:25:06 PM
In message <iuco82$u6s$1@dont-email.me>, James Kuyper
<jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes
>On 06/28/2011 09:03 AM, Chris H wrote:
>> In message <iuchk8$gha$1@dont-email.me>, James Kuyper
>> <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes
>...
>>> It's only worthwhile pointing out the unreliability of wikipedia if you
>>> can identify a more reliable source.
>>
>> That is not true.   Unreliable information should be removed if it is
>> wrong.
>
>If you are justified in your belief that something is wrong, you will
>have an alternative source that you consider more reliable.

Not always.  Also in many cases not information that can be put on a
public web page. It might surprise you that in the information age
information is power and a lot of it is NOT in the public domain.

There is a very stupid belief these days that if it is not on the
Internet it is not real.  So if you can't provide a link it is not
real....  I was discussing something similar with a friend who was at
the start or the Internet and was discussing this in a forum. When
challenged for links to prove what he said (as him saying "I was there
did not count")  he replied with "two filing cabinets beside my desk".

> If so, you
>should cite it; without such a citation, other people cannot judge the
>accuracy of your belief that it is, in fact, a more reliable source.

SO if I write some complete crap on a wiki page (with no citations) it
should stand unless some one has citations to prove otherwise?

What you are saying is that any old rubbish can go on wiki unless some
one has the time and resources (ie money) maintain the page to put
something else up?

Besides often you have to be prepared to battle nutters and zealots who
won't accept reality. Why should I spend time and effort on that?

No wonder wiki is a mess.  Yes a lot of it is good ad accurate but a
hell of a lot is a mess.


If Wiki is not correct then it is wrong

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



0
chris32 (3361)
6/28/2011 3:01:05 PM
On 6/28/2011 8:16 AM, Chris H wrote:
> In message<4e09c223$0$79555$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>, robin
> <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au>  writes
>> "Georg Bauhaus"<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>  wrote in message
>> news:4e099b90$0$6556$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
>> | On 28.06.11 09:19, robin wrote:
>> |>  "Georg Bauhaus"<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>  wrote in message
>> |>  news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
>> |>  |
>> |>  | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
>> |>  | of 8bit μcontrollers is more than a half. (They give sources for
>> |>  | the numbers.)
>> |>
>> |>  Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
>> |
>> | They list their references, you didn't.
>>
>> I've lost count of the number of times I've corrected incorrect
>> information in Wikipedia.
>
> "But you would say that" :-)
>
> And then some one else "corrects" your stuff.....  I personally have
> seen the case where someone was "correcting" a page they had written
> after the originator of the work on finding the wiki page had changed a
> lot of the page to be accurate.
>
> So even when some one who really knows corrects the Wiki there is no
> guarantee that some idiot will not change it again.
>
> Some companies, religions, pressure groups, political groups spend time
> "correcting" wiki pages to reflect their views and "repairing" damaged
> caused by vandals.... ie other companies, religions, pressure groups,
> political groups spending time "correcting" wiki pages to reflect their
> views
>
>
>

Eventually some of these groups get black-listed.  Last I heard the 
Scientologists were locked out from updating anything having to do with 
Scientology.
0
Peter_Flass (956)
6/28/2011 3:44:14 PM
"robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes:

> "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message 
> news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
> |
> | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
> | of 8bit µcontrollers is more than a half. (They give sources for
> | the numbers.)
>
> Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 

It's as reliable as any encyclopedia.  What it isn't, is original
research -- and it doesn't pretend to be.

Do you have a more reliable source that says otherwise?
0
pfeiffer (699)
6/28/2011 4:04:55 PM
In message <1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>, Joe Pfeiffer
<pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes
>"robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes:
>
>> "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
>> news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
>> |
>> | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
>> | of 8bit 0 >> | the numbers.)
>>
>> Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
>
>It's as reliable as any encyclopedia.

That is the problem we face... stupidity like that.

Wiki is very far from being as reliable as any other encyclopaedia.

I know some one who has a written a page entry for the Encyclopaedia
Britanica.   He is a world expert in the subject which is why he was
asked to do it.  When he finished the item it was peer reviewed by other
world class experts.  It is like that for al their entries. The same
with most other encyclopaedias. They take a lot of care.

That sort of level of care does not go into wiki pages. Anyone can write
anything on any page. There was an experiment done 3-4 years ago to see
if was possible to get ridiculous changes past the page editors.  IT was
so successful that after owning up some of the changes were not reversed
until the experimenters re-edited the pages themselves.

SO apart from the usual mistakes, and the authors being anything but
experts, there are those with differing views counter editing and of
course malicious editing.  You don't get these problems in  other
encyclopaedias.

In short due the openness of the wiki it is far less reliable than any
other encyclopaedia. Because no one is responsible in any meaningful way
for what is on wikipeadia.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



0
chris32 (3361)
6/28/2011 4:36:57 PM
Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> writes:

> In message <1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>, Joe Pfeiffer
> <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes
>>"robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes:
>>
>>> "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
>>> news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
>>> |
>>> | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
>>> | of 8bit 0 >> | the numbers.)
>>>
>>> Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
>>
>>It's as reliable as any encyclopedia.
>
> That is the problem we face... stupidity like that.
>
> Wiki is very far from being as reliable as any other encyclopaedia.
>
> I know some one who has a written a page entry for the Encyclopaedia
> Britanica.   He is a world expert in the subject which is why he was
> asked to do it.  When he finished the item it was peer reviewed by other
> world class experts.  It is like that for al their entries. The same
> with most other encyclopaedias. They take a lot of care.
>
> That sort of level of care does not go into wiki pages. Anyone can write
> anything on any page. There was an experiment done 3-4 years ago to see
> if was possible to get ridiculous changes past the page editors.  IT was
> so successful that after owning up some of the changes were not reversed
> until the experimenters re-edited the pages themselves.
>
> SO apart from the usual mistakes, and the authors being anything but
> experts, there are those with differing views counter editing and of
> course malicious editing.  You don't get these problems in  other
> encyclopaedias.
>
> In short due the openness of the wiki it is far less reliable than any
> other encyclopaedia. Because no one is responsible in any meaningful way
> for what is on wikipeadia.

The only study I've seen showed an error rate for wikipedia roughly 30%
higher (per article) than britannica, while a follow-on pointed out that
the articles themselves were 2.6 times longer.

Yes, it's possible to deliberately "game" wikipedia in order to prove a
point, and politicians and others who have an interest in the content of
articles vandalize them.  The number of 8-bit processors doesn't come
into these categories, and besides (as has been pointed out by others)
the wikipedia article cites sources.

So, rather than blanket statements regarding the unreliability of wikis,
or anecdotes regarding your friend the expert, are you claiming the
wikipedia author mis-quoted the statistics?  Or do you have a "more
reliable" source that says says something different?
0
pfeiffer (699)
6/28/2011 4:51:49 PM
Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> writes:

> In message <1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>, Joe Pfeiffer
> <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes
>>"robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes:
>>
>>> "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
>>> news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
>>> |
>>> | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
>>> | of 8bit 0 >> | the numbers.)
>>>
>>> Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
>>
>>It's as reliable as any encyclopedia.
>
> That is the problem we face... stupidity like that.
>
> Wiki is very far from being as reliable as any other encyclopaedia.
>
> I know some one who has a written a page entry for the Encyclopaedia
> Britanica.   He is a world expert in the subject which is why he was
> asked to do it.  When he finished the item it was peer reviewed by other
> world class experts.  It is like that for al their entries. The same
> with most other encyclopaedias. They take a lot of care.
>
> That sort of level of care does not go into wiki pages. Anyone can write
> anything on any page. There was an experiment done 3-4 years ago to see
> if was possible to get ridiculous changes past the page editors.  IT was
> so successful that after owning up some of the changes were not reversed
> until the experimenters re-edited the pages themselves.
>
> SO apart from the usual mistakes, and the authors being anything but
> experts, there are those with differing views counter editing and of
> course malicious editing.  You don't get these problems in  other
> encyclopaedias.
>
> In short due the openness of the wiki it is far less reliable than any
> other encyclopaedia. Because no one is responsible in any meaningful way
> for what is on wikipeadia.

The only study I've seen showed an error rate for wikipedia roughly 30%
higher (per article) than britannica, while a follow-on pointed out that
the articles themselves were 2.6 times longer.

Yes, it's possible to deliberately "game" wikipedia in order to prove a
point, and politicians and others who have an interest in the content of
articles vandalize them.  The number of 8-bit processors doesn't come
into these categories, and besides (as has been pointed out by others)
the wikipedia article cites sources.

So, rather than blanket statements regarding the unreliability of wikis,
or anecdotes regarding your friend the expert, are you claiming the
wikipedia author mis-quoted the statistics?  Or do you have a "more
reliable" source that says says something different?
0
pfeiffer (699)
6/28/2011 4:52:34 PM
Chris H wrote:
> In message<1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>, Joe Pfeiffer
> <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>  writes
>> "robin"<robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au>  writes:
>>
>>> "Georg Bauhaus"<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>  wrote in message
>>> news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
>>> |
>>> | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
>>> | of 8bit 0>>  | the numbers.)
>>>
>>> Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
>>
>> It's as reliable as any encyclopedia.
>
> That is the problem we face... stupidity like that.
>
> Wiki is very far from being as reliable as any other encyclopaedia.
>
> I know some one who has a written a page entry for the Encyclopaedia
> Britanica.   He is a world expert in the subject which is why he was
> asked to do it.  When he finished the item it was peer reviewed by other
> world class experts.  It is like that for al their entries. The same
> with most other encyclopaedias. They take a lot of care.
>
> That sort of level of care does not go into wiki pages. Anyone can write
> anything on any page. There was an experiment done 3-4 years ago to see
> if was possible to get ridiculous changes past the page editors.  IT was
> so successful that after owning up some of the changes were not reversed
> until the experimenters re-edited the pages themselves.
>
> SO apart from the usual mistakes, and the authors being anything but
> experts, there are those with differing views counter editing and of
> course malicious editing.  You don't get these problems in  other
> encyclopaedias.
>
> In short due the openness of the wiki it is far less reliable than any
> other encyclopaedia. Because no one is responsible in any meaningful way
> for what is on wikipeadia.
>
>

A few years back I had written that the Wikipedia page
on Brownian motion was about as good as what I'd expect from
Encyclopaedia Britannica.  Unfortunately, I hadn't looked at
what Encyclopaedia Britannica had on Brownian motion.

That was at a time when Encyclopaedia Britannica was a more accurate reference
than Wikipedia.  It would be interesting to find those old web pages,
if they still exist.

David Bernier


-- 
The MegaPenny Project | One Trillion Pennies:
<http://www.kokogiak.com/megapenny/thirteen.asp>
0
david250 (151)
6/28/2011 5:06:11 PM
On 2011-06-28 12:36:57 -0400, Chris H said:
> I know some one who has a written a page entry for the Encyclopaedia
> Britanica.   He is a world expert in the subject which is why he was
> asked to do it.  When he finished the item it was peer reviewed by other
> world class experts.  It is like that for al their entries. The same
> with most other encyclopaedias. They take a lot of care.

I know a religion with thousands of adherents that was based on a 
completely false article that was put into the Britannica in 1929 and 
remained there for forty years.

-- 
John W Kennedy
"Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the 
obeisance of others!  Thus is bad government born!  Hold in your heart 
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government 
shall arise of its own accord!  Such is the path of virtue!"
  -- Kazuo Koike.  "Lone Wolf and Cub:  Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)

0
jwkenne (1442)
6/28/2011 6:15:04 PM
On 6/29/2011 4:36 AM, Chris H wrote:
> In message<1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>, Joe Pfeiffer
> <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>  writes
>> "robin"<robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au>  writes:
>>
>>> "Georg Bauhaus"<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>  wrote in message
>>> news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
>>> |
>>> | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
>>> | of 8bit 0>>  | the numbers.)
>>>
>>> Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
>>
>> It's as reliable as any encyclopedia.
>
> That is the problem we face... stupidity like that.
>
> Wiki is very far from being as reliable as any other encyclopaedia.
....

The problem with Wikipedia is that it required a lot of discretion and 
discrimination on the part of the user.  It is very good in some areas, 
and very unreliable in others (just as some people are reliable sources 
of information, and others are not).  For example, anything about 
political disputes that are still active is subject to capture by 
interested parties.  More generally, anything controversial is at risk 
of being distorted.  On the other hand, the more scientific the issue 
is, the more reliable the information on Wikipedia.  There is still a 
considerable element of randomness though, because while some articles 
are written by real experts, others are from people without a deep 
understanding on the subject.
0
g.bogle2029 (107)
6/28/2011 9:11:36 PM
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:53:53 +0200, Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote:
> On 28.06.11 13:59, robin wrote:
>> "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message 
>> news:4e099b90$0$6556$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
>> | On 28.06.11 09:19, robin wrote:
>> | > "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
>> | > news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
>> | > |
>> | > | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
>> | > | of 8bit µcontrollers is more than a half. (They give sources for
>> | > | the numbers.)
>> | >
>> | > Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
>> |
>> | They list their references, you didn't.
>> 
>> I've lost count of the number of times I've corrected incorrect
>> information in Wikipedia. 
>
> Are you saying that sources (about analysis of number of
> processors sold) referenced on the current page are incorrect
> and should not be referred to?

That is the key point that nobody else has mentioned. Material on
wikipedia must be sourced. You should not edit just because you "know"
it is wrong. You must have a source. If you can show from another source
that the original source is incorrect, that is fine. Not using sources is
called "original research" on wikipedia and it is not allowed under the
guidelines. It is why wikipedia is actually so much better than you
might expect it to be.


-- 
      Brian Salter-Duke          Melbourne, Australia
    My real address is b_duke(AT)bigpond(DOT)net(DOT)au
               Use this for reply or followup
   "A good programmer can write Fortran in any language"
0
b_duke314 (17)
6/28/2011 10:39:39 PM
"John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:4e0a1a28$0$28708$607ed4bc@cv.net...
| On 2011-06-28 12:36:57 -0400, Chris H said:
| > I know some one who has a written a page entry for the Encyclopaedia
| > Britanica.   He is a world expert in the subject which is why he was
| > asked to do it.  When he finished the item it was peer reviewed by other
| > world class experts.  It is like that for al their entries. The same
| > with most other encyclopaedias. They take a lot of care.
|
| I know a religion with thousands of adherents that was based on a
| completely false article that was put into the Britannica in 1929 and
| remained there for forty years.

And which was that? 


0
robin512 (311)
6/28/2011 11:59:37 PM
"Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message news:1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net...
| "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes:
|
| > "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
| > news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
| > |
| > | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
| > | of 8bit �controllers is more than a half. (They give sources for
| > | the numbers.)
| >
| > Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
|
| It's as reliable as any encyclopedia.  What it isn't, is original
| research -- and it doesn't pretend to be.
|
| Do you have a more reliable source that says otherwise?

A real encyclopedia. 


0
robin512 (311)
6/29/2011 12:00:52 AM
robin wrote:

....


> A real encyclopedia. 
....


A "real" encyclopedia is going to have data on the market share of the 
various word sizes of processors at the current time????

I don't _think_ so...

--

0
non8502 (93)
6/29/2011 12:09:57 AM
On 06/28/2011 11:01 AM, Chris H wrote:
> In message <iuco82$u6s$1@dont-email.me>, James Kuyper
> <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes
>> On 06/28/2011 09:03 AM, Chris H wrote:
>>> In message <iuchk8$gha$1@dont-email.me>, James Kuyper
>>> <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes
>> ...
>>>> It's only worthwhile pointing out the unreliability of wikipedia if you
>>>> can identify a more reliable source.
>>>
>>> That is not true.   Unreliable information should be removed if it is
>>> wrong.
>>
>> If you are justified in your belief that something is wrong, you will
>> have an alternative source that you consider more reliable.
> 
> Not always.

If so, please provide a counter-example. If it happens often enough to
justify bothering to mention that possibility, it shouldn't be hard to
come up with one.

> ...  Also in many cases not information that can be put on a
> public web page. It might surprise you that in the information age
> information is power and a lot of it is NOT in the public domain.

One of the costs of secrecy is that people reach incorrect conclusions
and make bad decisions based upon the absence of the information that's
been kept secret. That's not their fault, it's the fault of the secret
keepers, and in an ideal world the secret keepers would be held liable
for the costs of those badly made decisions.

The existence of secrets is not adequate justification for criticizing
Wikipedia; it makes no claim to being able to penetrate people's secrets
- that's Wikileaks you're thinking of.

> There is a very stupid belief these days that if it is not on the
> Internet it is not real.  So if you can't provide a link it is not

Who said anything about a link? I just asked for a citation. You
remember those - they predate the Internet; they predate the invention
of electronics; they predate the invention of the the printing press.

> real....  I was discussing something similar with a friend who was at
> the start or the Internet and was discussing this in a forum. When
> challenged for links to prove what he said (as him saying "I was there
> did not count")  he replied with "two filing cabinets beside my desk".

A citation that cannot be checked by the person you're communicating
with is useless; if such a citation is the only reason you can give for
believing something, the other person is well justified in being
skeptical about it. You might be right, but you've not given him
adequate justification to believe you.

>> If so, you
>> should cite it; without such a citation, other people cannot judge the
>> accuracy of your belief that it is, in fact, a more reliable source.
> 
> SO if I write some complete crap on a wiki page (with no citations) it
> should stand unless some one has citations to prove otherwise?

How did you reach such a stupid conclusion? There's not even the
remotest connection between what I said and your response. Wikipedia's
standards require citations; the editors do clean up wiki pages that
lack them; and the particular page currently under discussion had citations.

> What you are saying is that any old rubbish can go on wiki unless some
> one has the time and resources (ie money) maintain the page to put
> something else up?

Again, that comment has no logical connection to anything which I said,
which was about wiki page which did have citations, just as most of them do.

> Besides often you have to be prepared to battle nutters and zealots who
> won't accept reality. Why should I spend time and effort on that?

That's a different matter; I've never bothered fixing a wiki page, so I
could hardly criticize someone else for failing to do so. On the other
hand, I've recognized very few errors on those pages. This is partly
because I use Wikipedia mainly to look up things I don't know about.
However, I've also frequently looked at Wikipedia pages covering topics
I'm an expert in; I've seldom seen any defect in any of those pages that
was serious enough that I'd want to bother correcting it, even if I had
endless free time. The worst cases I've seen are pages that were clearly
written by non-native speakers of English, and even those were far
cleaner than the typical message I receive from co-workers and in-laws
who aren't native speakers of English.

> If Wiki is not correct then it is wrong.

Of course it's not correct. No significant repository of knowledge is
free from errors. It's just a question of how many, and what type. If
you expect perfection, you're dreaming. If you consider a source of
information unusable solely because it has errors, without
quantification of those errors, there aren't any usable sources.
-- 
James Kuyper
0
jameskuyper (5635)
6/29/2011 12:20:27 AM
On 06/28/2011 08:00 PM, robin wrote:
> "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message news:1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net...
> | "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes:
> |
> | > "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
> | > news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
> | > |
> | > | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
> | > | of 8bit �controllers is more than a half. (They give sources for
> | > | the numbers.)
> | >
> | > Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
> |
> | It's as reliable as any encyclopedia.  What it isn't, is original
> | research -- and it doesn't pretend to be.
> |
> | Do you have a more reliable source that says otherwise?
> 
> A real encyclopedia. 

Wikipedia's quite real, it's just not on paper.

Which dead-tree encyclopedia has an up-to-date article covering this
topic, and what does it say about the question?
-- 
James Kuyper
0
jameskuyper (5635)
6/29/2011 12:25:40 AM
On 06/28/2011 12:51 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> writes:
....
> So, rather than blanket statements regarding the unreliability of wikis,
> or anecdotes regarding your friend the expert, are you claiming the
> wikipedia author mis-quoted the statistics?  Or do you have a "more
> reliable" source that says says something different?

He's been asked several times now whether he has a more reliable source,
and he hasn't bothered responding to those questions. That's pretty
strong evidence that he doesn't have any, though it's not conclusive.
-- 
James Kuyper
0
jameskuyper (5635)
6/29/2011 12:27:21 AM
"robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes:

> "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message news:1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net...
> | "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes:
> |
> | > "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
> | > news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
> | > |
> | > | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
> | > | of 8bit µcontrollers is more than a half. (They give sources for
> | > | the numbers.)
> | >
> | > Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
> |
> | It's as reliable as any encyclopedia.  What it isn't, is original
> | research -- and it doesn't pretend to be.
> |
> | Do you have a more reliable source that says otherwise?
>
> A real encyclopedia. 

Remember the "says otherwise" part.  Which "real" encyclopedia claims
less than all processors are 8-bit?
0
pfeiffer (699)
6/29/2011 12:52:18 AM
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:

> On 06/28/2011 12:51 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> writes:
> ...
>> So, rather than blanket statements regarding the unreliability of wikis,
>> or anecdotes regarding your friend the expert, are you claiming the
>> wikipedia author mis-quoted the statistics?  Or do you have a "more
>> reliable" source that says says something different?
>
> He's been asked several times now whether he has a more reliable source,
> and he hasn't bothered responding to those questions. That's pretty
> strong evidence that he doesn't have any, though it's not conclusive.

That seems like a pretty safe bet.  I just get really annoyed by people
who respond to wikipedia quotes by dismissing it as "unreliable" or "not
authoritative" or any of a dozen other near-synonyms, as though
reliability were a boolean function, and as though any encyclopedia has
ever been useable as a source for... well, just about anything beyond
general information or an initial overview before turning to real
sources, really.
0
pfeiffer (699)
6/29/2011 1:00:36 AM
On 2011-06-28 19:59:37 -0400, robin said:

> "John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message 
> news:4e0a1a28$0$28708$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> | On 2011-06-28 12:36:57 -0400, Chris H said:
> | > I know some one who has a written a page entry for the Encyclopaedia
> | > Britanica.   He is a world expert in the subject which is why he was
> | > asked to do it.  When he finished the item it was peer reviewed by other
> | > world class experts.  It is like that for al their entries. The same
> | > with most other encyclopaedias. They take a lot of care.
> |
> | I know a religion with thousands of adherents that was based on a
> | completely false article that was put into the Britannica in 1929 and
> | remained there for forty years.
> 
> And which was that?

Margaret Murray's notorious "Witchcraft" article, which the Britannica 
has been apologizing for since 1974.

-- 
John W Kennedy
"...if you had to fall in love with someone who was evil, I can see why 
it was her."
  -- "Alias"

0
jwkenne (1442)
6/29/2011 1:11:00 AM
Gib Bogle <g.bogle@auckland.ac.nz> writes:

> On 6/29/2011 4:36 AM, Chris H wrote:
>> In message<1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>, Joe Pfeiffer
>> <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>  writes
>>> "robin"<robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au>  writes:
>>>
>>>> "Georg Bauhaus"<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>  wrote in message
>>>> news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
>>>> |
>>>> | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
>>>> | of 8bit 0>>  | the numbers.)
>>>>
>>>> Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
>>>
>>> It's as reliable as any encyclopedia.
>>
>> That is the problem we face... stupidity like that.
>>
>> Wiki is very far from being as reliable as any other encyclopaedia.
> ...
>
> The problem with Wikipedia is that it required a lot of discretion and
> discrimination on the part of the user.  It is very good in some
> areas, and very unreliable in others (just as some people are reliable
> sources of information, and others are not).  

Well yeah, but this is a particularly useless observation.

I mean, this goes for *every* source of information; they always require
discretion and discrimination. And yet discussions on the Internet are
full of people citing e.g. The Daily Mail as a reliable source.

The fact that some people evidently don't know how to handle a source
and do further research is not per se a problem with the source. Even
The Daily Mail can be a useful source, if only because it leads you to
more trustworthy sources to debunk them.

Mart

-- 
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
0
mvdwege (202)
6/29/2011 4:47:29 AM
"robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes:

> "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message news:1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net...
> | "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes:
> |
> | > "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
> | > news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
> | > |
> | > | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
> | > | of 8bit µcontrollers is more than a half. (They give sources for
> | > | the numbers.)
> | >
> | > Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
> |
> | It's as reliable as any encyclopedia.  What it isn't, is original
> | research -- and it doesn't pretend to be.
> |
> | Do you have a more reliable source that says otherwise?
>
> A real encyclopedia. 

(assuming "real" == "printed") Which one?

And much more importantly, what does it say about the proportion of
total CPUs sold that are 8 bit microcontrollers?
-- 
Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk
0
3-nospam (285)
6/29/2011 6:43:03 AM
In article <iudg27$1ik$3@speranza.aioe.org>,
Gib Bogle  <g.bogle@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>The problem with Wikipedia is that it required a lot of discretion and 
>discrimination on the part of the user.  It is very good in some areas, 
>and very unreliable in others (just as some people are reliable sources 
>of information, and others are not).  For example, anything about 
>political disputes that are still active is subject to capture by 
>interested parties.  More generally, anything controversial is at risk 
>of being distorted.

Yes, precisely.  And the same applies to topics that are not often
regarded as controversial, because a particular dogma is claimed to
have been proven.  In those cases, Wikipedia's references just refer
to more prestigious papers that spout the same dogma.

The better encyclopaedias are a bit better in this respect, and
usually refer to the original sources when they exist.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
0
nmm12 (1380)
6/29/2011 7:36:08 AM
In article <09bDn$GxyeCOFAH3@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
 Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:

> In message <iuco82$u6s$1@dont-email.me>, James Kuyper
> <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes
> >On 06/28/2011 09:03 AM, Chris H wrote:
> >> In message <iuchk8$gha$1@dont-email.me>, James Kuyper
> >> <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes
> >...
> >>> It's only worthwhile pointing out the unreliability of wikipedia if you
> >>> can identify a more reliable source.
> >>
> >> That is not true.   Unreliable information should be removed if it is
> >> wrong.
> >
> >If you are justified in your belief that something is wrong, you will
> >have an alternative source that you consider more reliable.
> 
> Not always.  Also in many cases not information that can be put on a
> public web page. It might surprise you that in the information age
> information is power and a lot of it is NOT in the public domain.

'Twas ever thus. Look at the trouble it took to get 
Christian scripture published in English. Likely
it would never have happened without movable type.

> There is a very stupid belief these days that if it is not on the
> Internet it is not real.  So if you can't provide a link it is not
> real....  I was discussing something similar with a friend who was at
> the start or the Internet and was discussing this in a forum. When
> challenged for links to prove what he said (as him saying "I was there
> did not count")  he replied with "two filing cabinets beside my desk".
> 
> > If so, you
> >should cite it; without such a citation, other people cannot judge the
> >accuracy of your belief that it is, in fact, a more reliable source.
> 
> SO if I write some complete crap on a wiki page (with no citations) it
> should stand unless some one has citations to prove otherwise?

Else how are we to know it is complete crap?

> What you are saying is that any old rubbish can go on wiki unless some
> one has the time and resources (ie money) maintain the page to put
> something else up?

As I understand it, Wikipedia demands references 
to peer reviewed literature

> Besides often you have to be prepared to battle nutters and zealots who
> won't accept reality. Why should I spend time and effort on that?

Agree. Battling nutters and zealots is usually a poor use of our time.

> No wonder wiki is a mess.  

Disagree. It is as orderly or more so than many public forums.

> Yes a lot of it is good ad accurate but a
> hell of a lot is a mess.
> 
> 
> If Wiki is not correct then it is wrong

-- 
Michael Press
0
rubrum (248)
6/29/2011 8:38:50 AM
>>>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
>>>>> On 06/28/2011 08:00 PM, robin wrote:
>>>>> "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote...
>>>>> "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes: 

 >>>> Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

[...]

 >>> Do you have a more reliable source that says otherwise?

 >> A real encyclopedia.

 > Wikipedia's quite real, it's just not on paper.

	Printed versions are also available, not to mention that one can
	always print it him- or herself.

 > Which dead-tree encyclopedia has an up-to-date article covering this
 > topic, and what does it say about the question?

	... The problem is that it's not as hard to have some kind of
	utter rubbish published as someone may imagine.  Actually, I
	guess that the more than half of the stuff printed nowadays is
	anything but reliable.

	Wikipedia has its policies, just as virtually any other serious
	(for certain definitions of the word) encyclopedia.  My belief
	is that these policies work.  Most of the time, at the least.

-- 
FSF associate member #7257
0
ivan51 (93)
6/29/2011 9:03:28 AM
On 06/28/2011 08:52 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes:
> 
>> "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message news:1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net...
>> | "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes:
>> |
>> | > "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
>> | > news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
>> | > |
>> | > | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
>> | > | of 8bit µcontrollers is more than a half. (They give sources for
>> | > | the numbers.)
>> | >
>> | > Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
>> |
>> | It's as reliable as any encyclopedia.  What it isn't, is original
>> | research -- and it doesn't pretend to be.
>> |
>> | Do you have a more reliable source that says otherwise?
>>
>> A real encyclopedia. 
> 
> Remember the "says otherwise" part.  Which "real" encyclopedia claims
> less than all processors are 8-bit?

I believe that you meant to write "... less than half of all ..."?


-- 
James Kuyper
0
jameskuyper (5635)
6/29/2011 9:52:15 AM
On 29.06.11 09:36, nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote:

> Yes, precisely.  And the same applies to topics that are not often
> regarded as controversial, because a particular dogma is claimed to
> have been proven.  In those cases, Wikipedia's references just refer
> to more prestigious papers that spout the same dogma.

Well, yes. It's always been like that. Just browse a prestigious
ecyclopaedia from the 1930s and look up "race".  What do you find?

> The better encyclopaedias are a bit better in this respect, and
> usually refer to the original sources when they exist.

Which is what Wikipedia does try to do in the case of 8bit
µcontrollers.
0
6/29/2011 9:58:30 AM
On 6/28/2011 8:00 PM, robin wrote:
> "Joe Pfeiffer"<pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>  wrote in message news:1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net...
> | "robin"<robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au>  writes:
> |
> |>  "Georg Bauhaus"<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>  wrote in message
> |>  news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
> |>  |
> |>  | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
> |>  | of 8bit �controllers is more than a half. (They give sources for
> |>  | the numbers.)
> |>
> |>  Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
> |
> | It's as reliable as any encyclopedia.  What it isn't, is original
> | research -- and it doesn't pretend to be.
> |
> | Do you have a more reliable source that says otherwise?
>
> A real encyclopedia.
>
>

Encyclopediae have their own set of problems.  The data is often 
outdated, and they don't have the breadth of coverage someone like 
Wikipedia can have.
0
Peter_Flass (956)
6/29/2011 1:50:26 PM
On 6/29/2011 2:43 AM, Dr Nick wrote:
> "robin"<robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au>  writes:
>
>> "Joe Pfeiffer"<pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>  wrote in message news:1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net...
>> | "robin"<robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au>  writes:
>> |
>> |>  "Georg Bauhaus"<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>  wrote in message
>> |>  news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
>> |>  |
>> |>  | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
>> |>  | of 8bit µcontrollers is more than a half. (They give sources for
>> |>  | the numbers.)
>> |>
>> |>  Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
>> |
>> | It's as reliable as any encyclopedia.  What it isn't, is original
>> | research -- and it doesn't pretend to be.
>> |
>> | Do you have a more reliable source that says otherwise?
>>
>> A real encyclopedia.
>
> (assuming "real" == "printed") Which one?
>
> And much more importantly, what does it say about the proportion of
> total CPUs sold that are 8 bit microcontrollers?

And when was the article written?
0
Peter_Flass (956)
6/29/2011 2:10:55 PM
On 6/29/2011 5:52 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 06/28/2011 08:52 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> "robin"<robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au>  writes:
>>
>>> "Joe Pfeiffer"<pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>  wrote in message news:1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net...
>>> | "robin"<robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au>  writes:
>>> |
>>> |>  "Georg Bauhaus"<rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>  wrote in message
>>> |>  news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
>>> |>  |
>>> |>  | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
>>> |>  | of 8bit µcontrollers is more than a half. (They give sources for
>>> |>  | the numbers.)
>>> |>
>>> |>  Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
>>> |
>>> | It's as reliable as any encyclopedia.  What it isn't, is original
>>> | research -- and it doesn't pretend to be.
>>> |
>>> | Do you have a more reliable source that says otherwise?
>>>
>>> A real encyclopedia.
>>
>> Remember the "says otherwise" part.  Which "real" encyclopedia claims
>> less than all processors are 8-bit?
>
> I believe that you meant to write "... less than half of all ..."?
>
>

On the other hand, the original is definitely a true statement;-)
0
Peter_Flass (956)
6/29/2011 2:12:17 PM
Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> writes:
> "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes:
> > "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message news:1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net...
> > | "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes:
> > |
> > | > "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
> > | > news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
> > | > |
> > | > | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
> > | > | of 8bit �controllers is more than a half. (They give sources for
> > | > | the numbers.)
> > | >
> > | > Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
> > |
> > | It's as reliable as any encyclopedia.  What it isn't, is original
> > | research -- and it doesn't pretend to be.
> > |
> > | Do you have a more reliable source that says otherwise?
> >
> > A real encyclopedia. 
> 
> (assuming "real" == "printed") Which one?
> 
> And much more importantly, what does it say about the proportion of
> total CPUs sold that are 8 bit microcontrollers?

Well, I used to work for a top-10 semiconductor manufacturer and there, 
by number of units, microcontrollers easily outsold 32-bit CPUs.

Even if every moderately advanced phone has at least 3 32-bit ARM
cores on it (many have 7 or more). The number of microcontrollers in
automative applications absolutely dwarfs that. I know we were
supplying 30 processors for some vehicles, and I know we weren't the
only supplier.

Every time they make things like microwaves more hi-tech so that they
need a 16- or 32-bit processor, they find something even dumber to
put 8-bit microcontrollers into.

Phil
-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." -- Matthew Vernon
0
6/29/2011 4:42:52 PM
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> On 06/28/2011 12:51 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> > Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> writes:
> ...
> > So, rather than blanket statements regarding the unreliability of wikis,
> > or anecdotes regarding your friend the expert, are you claiming the
> > wikipedia author mis-quoted the statistics?  Or do you have a "more
> > reliable" source that says says something different?
> 
> He's been asked several times now whether he has a more reliable source,
> and he hasn't bothered responding to those questions.

Au contraire - he responded. In the same way that a dead frog's
leg responds to a galvanic impulse.

Phil
-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." -- Matthew Vernon
0
6/29/2011 4:48:48 PM
In message <87zkl07fn7.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphi
l_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> writes:
>> "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes:
>> > "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message news:1bei2e5
>> >4d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net...
>> > | "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes:
>> > |
>> > | > "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
>> > | > news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
>> > | > |
>> > | > | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
>> > | > | of 8bit μcontrollers is more than a half. (They give sources for
>> > | > | the numbers.)
>> > | >
>> > | > Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
>> > |
>> > | It's as reliable as any encyclopedia.  What it isn't, is original
>> > | research -- and it doesn't pretend to be.
>> > |
>> > | Do you have a more reliable source that says otherwise?
>> >
>> > A real encyclopedia.
>>
>> (assuming "real" == "printed") Which one?
>>
>> And much more importantly, what does it say about the proportion of
>> total CPUs sold that are 8 bit microcontrollers?
>
>Well, I used to work for a top-10 semiconductor manufacturer and there,
>by number of units, microcontrollers easily outsold 32-bit CPUs.
>
>Even if every moderately advanced phone has at least 3 32-bit ARM
>cores on it (many have 7 or more).

Most mobile phone SIMS are (or were) an 8051 type. I know I worked on
them.

> The number of microcontrollers in
>automative applications absolutely dwarfs that. I know we were
>supplying 30 processors for some vehicles, and I know we weren't the
>only supplier.
>
>Every time they make things like microwaves more hi-tech so that they
>need a 16- or 32-bit processor, they find something even dumber to
>put 8-bit microcontrollers into.

Also most of the smart cards (ie credit, debit charge etc) with a chip
in were 8051 types.

It will change as the cheap low power 32bit platforms gain market share
but there are already billions of 8 bit systems out there.




-- 
Support Sarah Palin for the next US President
Go Palin! Go Palin! Go Palin!
In God We Trust! Rapture Ready!!!
http://www.sarahpac.com/


0
chris32 (3361)
6/29/2011 5:09:54 PM
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> writes:
>> "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes:
>> > "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message news:1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net...
>> > | "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> writes:
>> > |
>> > | > "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
>> > | > news:4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
>> > | > |
>> > | > | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share
>> > | > | of 8bit µcontrollers is more than a half. (They give sources for
>> > | > | the numbers.)
>> > | >
>> > | > Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
>> > |
>> > | It's as reliable as any encyclopedia.  What it isn't, is original
>> > | research -- and it doesn't pretend to be.
>> > |
>> > | Do you have a more reliable source that says otherwise?
>> >
>> > A real encyclopedia. 
>> 
>> (assuming "real" == "printed") Which one?
>> 
>> And much more importantly, what does it say about the proportion of
>> total CPUs sold that are 8 bit microcontrollers?
>
> Well, I used to work for a top-10 semiconductor manufacturer and there, 
> by number of units, microcontrollers easily outsold 32-bit CPUs.
>
> Even if every moderately advanced phone has at least 3 32-bit ARM
> cores on it (many have 7 or more). The number of microcontrollers in
> automative applications absolutely dwarfs that. I know we were
> supplying 30 processors for some vehicles, and I know we weren't the
> only supplier.
>
> Every time they make things like microwaves more hi-tech so that they
> need a 16- or 32-bit processor, they find something even dumber to
> put 8-bit microcontrollers into.

Just for the record, I have no dog in the fight about the proportion of
microprocessors.  I'm just responding to the point that "Wikipedia is
not a reliable source" and "a real encyclopedia" is with a gentle
request for what a real encyclopedia says on the subject.
-- 
Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk
0
3-nospam (285)
6/29/2011 5:48:00 PM
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:

> On 06/28/2011 08:52 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> 
>> Remember the "says otherwise" part.  Which "real" encyclopedia claims
>> less than all processors are 8-bit?
>
> I believe that you meant to write "... less than half of all ..."?

Oops -- yes, I did.
0
pfeiffer (699)
6/29/2011 8:29:38 PM
In <867h85nh5r.fsf@gray.siamics.net>, on 06/29/2011
   at 04:03 PM, Ivan Shmakov <ivan@gray.siamics.net> said:

>	... The problem is that it's not as hard to have some kind of
>	utter rubbish published as someone may imagine.  Actually, I
>	guess that the more than half of the stuff printed nowadays is
>	anything but reliable.

A lot of articles in wiki are garbage, but a lot are of high quality.
It's a volunteer effort, so if you have expertise feel free to improve
the situation. Wiki is certainly more reliable than the mainstream
news media.

Is it better or worse than printed encyclopedias? Yes. Some of them
have errors as egregious as those in Wiki.

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

0
spamtrap16 (3722)
6/30/2011 12:28:25 PM
In message <4e0c6be9$4$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>, Shmuel Metz
<spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes
>In <867h85nh5r.fsf@gray.siamics.net>, on 06/29/2011
>   at 04:03 PM, Ivan Shmakov <ivan@gray.siamics.net> said:
>
>>      ... The problem is that it's not as hard to have some kind of
>>      utter rubbish published as someone may imagine.  Actually, I
>>      guess that the more than half of the stuff printed nowadays is
>>      anything but reliable.
>
>A lot of articles in wiki are garbage, but a lot are of high quality.

SO it is unreliable.

>It's a volunteer effort,

Yes anyone can write any old rubbish to a wiki page.

>so if you have expertise feel free to improve
>the situation.

No thanks.

>Wiki is certainly more reliable than the mainstream
>news media.

And less reliable than encycoppedia's

>Is it better or worse than printed encyclopedias? Yes. Some of them
>have errors as egregious as those in Wiki.

But generally better and not as open to abuse.


-- 
Support Sarah Palin for the next US President
Go Palin! Go Palin! Go Palin!
In God We Trust! Rapture Ready!!!
http://www.sarahpac.com/


0
chris32 (3361)
6/30/2011 12:39:30 PM
Peter Flass wrote:
> On 6/29/2011 5:52 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 06/28/2011 08:52 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

<snip>

>>> Remember the "says otherwise" part.  Which "real" encyclopedia claims
>>> less than all processors are 8-bit?
>>
>> I believe that you meant to write "... less than half of all ..."?
>>
>
> On the other hand, the original is definitely a true statement;-)

Source? :O
0
smoore1 (241)
6/30/2011 11:21:14 PM
Chris H wrote:
> 
> In message <4e0c6be9$4$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>, Shmuel Metz
> <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes
> >In <867h85nh5r.fsf@gray.siamics.net>, on 06/29/2011
> >   at 04:03 PM, Ivan Shmakov <ivan@gray.siamics.net> said:
> >
> >>      ... The problem is that it's not as hard to have some kind of
> >>      utter rubbish published as someone may imagine.  Actually, I
> >>      guess that the more than half of the stuff printed nowadays is
> >>      anything but reliable.
> >
> >A lot of articles in wiki are garbage, but a lot are of high quality.
> 
> SO it is unreliable.
> 
> >It's a volunteer effort,
> 
> Yes anyone can write any old rubbish to a wiki page.
> 
> >so if you have expertise feel free to improve
> >the situation.
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> >Wiki is certainly more reliable than the mainstream
> >news media.
> 
> And less reliable than encycoppedia's
> 
> >Is it better or worse than printed encyclopedias? Yes. Some of them
> >have errors as egregious as those in Wiki.
> 
> But generally better and not as open to abuse.

The same things that make printed encyclopaedias not as open to abuse,
make them not open to correction.

-- 
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by 
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting
0
7/1/2011 9:15:54 PM
On 6/29/2011 4:47 PM, Mart van de Wege wrote:
> Gib Bogle<g.bogle@auckland.ac.nz>  writes:
>>
>> The problem with Wikipedia is that it required a lot of discretion and
>> discrimination on the part of the user.  It is very good in some
>> areas, and very unreliable in others (just as some people are reliable
>> sources of information, and others are not).
>
> Well yeah, but this is a particularly useless observation.

You want usefulness in a usenet post?  My advice is: look elsewhere.
0
g.bogle2029 (107)
7/2/2011 6:49:53 AM
Gib Bogle <g.bogle@auckland.ac.nz> writes:

> On 6/29/2011 4:47 PM, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>> Gib Bogle<g.bogle@auckland.ac.nz>  writes:
>>>
>>> The problem with Wikipedia is that it required a lot of discretion and
>>> discrimination on the part of the user.  It is very good in some
>>> areas, and very unreliable in others (just as some people are reliable
>>> sources of information, and others are not).
>>
>> Well yeah, but this is a particularly useless observation.
>
> You want usefulness in a usenet post?  My advice is: look elsewhere.

I am reading this from comp.lang.ada, which is a very useful group,
thank you very much.

Mart

-- 
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
0
mvdwege (202)
7/2/2011 3:59:55 PM
On 7/3/2011 3:59 AM, Mart van de Wege wrote:
> Gib Bogle<g.bogle@auckland.ac.nz>  writes:
>
>> On 6/29/2011 4:47 PM, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>>> Gib Bogle<g.bogle@auckland.ac.nz>   writes:
>>>>
>>>> The problem with Wikipedia is that it required a lot of discretion and
>>>> discrimination on the part of the user.  It is very good in some
>>>> areas, and very unreliable in others (just as some people are reliable
>>>> sources of information, and others are not).
>>>
>>> Well yeah, but this is a particularly useless observation.
>>
>> You want usefulness in a usenet post?  My advice is: look elsewhere.
>
> I am reading this from comp.lang.ada, which is a very useful group,
> thank you very much.
>
> Mart
>

comp.lang.fortran is also a very useful group, for Fortran-related 
matters.  It isn't necessarily useful on any other random topic.
0
g.bogle2029 (107)
7/2/2011 9:57:12 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

GEORGE MARSAGLIA
George Marsaglia (1924 - February 15, 2011[1]) was a mathematician and computer scientist. He is perhaps best known for establishing the lattice structure[2] of congruential random number generators in the paper "Random numbers fall mainly in the planes", often called the Marsaglia effect,[3] or for developing the Diehard Battery of Tests of Randomness; a series of tests to determine whether or not a sequence of numbers have the statistical properties that could be expected from a random sequence. In 1995 he published a CD-ROM of random numbers which included the Diehard tests.[...

US-VA: King George-Oracle Database Administrator
************************************************************** JobCircle.com is the largest regional job board in the Mid-Atlantic region, with tens of thousands of job offerings in PA, NJ, DE, MD, NY, and Washington D.C. To learn more, visit http://www.jobcircle.com?source=ng ************************************************************** Job Title: Oracle Database Administrator Job Location: VA: King George Pay Rate: Open Job Length: full time Start Date: 2009-02-12 Company Name: BAE Systems Contact: Human Resources Phone: email only please ...

WC-NAV King George V BS bug
Has anyone else notice that the King George can fire and hit targets directly a stern of her with her Main Guns? Which in real life could not be done, since all 3 Turrets where on her bow, which gave her a blind spot of X number of degs to port and starboard a stern. -- We're in a war dammit. We're going to have to offend somebody. - John Adams On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:33:15 -0800, old.salt@cmaaccess.com wrote: > Has anyone else notice that the King George can fire and hit >targets directly a stern of her with her Main Guns? Which in real >life could not be do...

Why xml:lang instead of lang?
What was the reason to introduce a new attribute "xml:lang" instead of "lang"? This bothers both authors and browsers in different language versions: HTML 4, XHTML 1.0, XHTML 1.1. HTML has only "lang"; XHTML 1.1 has only "xml:lang"; XHTML 1.0 has both! For example, Mozilla 1.7 recognizes the lang attribute http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp/lang-attribute.htm but it does not recognize the xml:lang attribute. http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp/lang-attribute.xhtml What do we gain from "xml:lang"? Andreas Prilop wrote: > What was the reason to introduce a new attribute "xml:lang" > instead of "lang"? > What do we gain from "xml:lang"? By putting the attribute in the general and predefined namespace http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace it can be used by any XML application (e.g. XHTML, SVG) without any further effort and without any danger of colliding with attributes in no namespace a particular XML application might want to define. -- Martin Honnen http://JavaScript.FAQTs.com/ Andreas Prilop wrote: > What was the reason to introduce a new attribute "xml:lang" > instead of "lang"? Since it is useful to have a means of describing language in the core of XML. It only looks silly from an (X)HTML-centric viewpoint. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ In article <Pine.GSO.4.44.0603311415390.8640-100000@s5b004.rrzn.u...

US-VA: King George-Oracle Database Administrator #2
************************************************************** JobCircle.com is the largest regional job board in the Mid-Atlantic region, with tens of thousands of job offerings in PA, NJ, DE, MD, NY, and Washington D.C. To learn more, visit http://www.jobcircle.com?source=ng ************************************************************** Job Title: Oracle Database Administrator Job Location: VA: King George Pay Rate: Open Job Length: full time Start Date: 2009-02-21 Company Name: BAE Systems Contact: Human Resources Phone: email only please ...

US-VA: King George-Oracle Database Administrator #3
************************************************************** JobCircle.com is the largest regional job board in the Mid-Atlantic region, with tens of thousands of job offerings in PA, NJ, DE, MD, NY, and Washington D.C. To learn more, visit http://www.jobcircle.com?source=ng ************************************************************** Job Title: Oracle Database Administrator Job Location: VA: King George Pay Rate: Open Job Length: full time Start Date: 2009-02-25 Company Name: BAE Systems Contact: Human Resources Phone: email only please ...

lang
fortran ...

A Lange & Sohne Lange 1 Watches: Quality A Lange & Sohne Discount Watches
A Lange & Sohne Lange 1 Watches: Quality A Lange & Sohne Discount Watches Quality A Lange & Sohne Lange 1 Watches http://a-lange-sohne-watches.pxhelp.com/a-lange-sohne-lange-1.html Thank you for choosing http://www.pxhelp.com/ Discount A Lange & Sohne Watches http://a-lange-sohne-watches.pxhelp.com/ We guarantee our A Lange & Sohne Lange 1 Watches and A Lange & Sohne Lange 1 Luxury Watches aren't just a simple imitation. We use the same fine materials and technology that the original does. Each A Lange & Sohne Lange 1 Watch produced is examined carefully by ...

A Lange & Sohne Grand Lange 1 Watches: Quality A Lange & Sohne Discount Watches
A Lange & Sohne Grand Lange 1 Watches: Quality A Lange & Sohne Discount Watches Quality A Lange & Sohne Grand Lange 1 Watches http://a-lange-sohne-watches.pxhelp.com/a-lange-sohne-grand-lange-1.html Thank you for choosing http://www.pxhelp.com/ Discount A Lange & Sohne Watches http://a-lange-sohne-watches.pxhelp.com/ We guarantee our A Lange & Sohne Grand Lange 1 Watches and A Lange & Sohne Grand Lange 1 Luxury Watches aren't just a simple imitation. We use the same fine materials and technology that the original does. Each A Lange & Sohne Grand Lange 1 Watc...

The King is dead. Long live the King!
http://obotheclown.blogspot.com/2009/09/king-is-dead-long-live-king.html -- Cheers, Obnoxio The Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean. ...

To George
This code seems cool to me, because it deals with duplicates quite well. Do you mind if I web the source code? #!/usr/bin/perl #Author George Mpouras, 2015 #comp.lang.perl.misc use strict; use warnings; my @ListOfPossibleMatches = ( [ "be well", "kidney" ], [ "cancer", "gene", "third" ], [ "cancer", "nearly", "blood" ] ); my $text =<<EOTEXT; The drug, already taken by millions of patients to control blood sugar levels, is thought to be capable of starving some canc...

To George
I want you to be clear on what I think of you. You are lower than Dog Shit - the Lowest of the Low When I first posted on this group you were immediate in personally attacking me because " I don't like Macs"- you are a Fucking Nazi. You are the worst of the worst - you make all the other Maccies look like the most rational people in the world. I think that if you have a family - you must make them walk around the house in lockstep - I think you are a fucking control freak. I would welcome you to take a punch - it would make my day. I wonder how many small ani...

A Lange & Sohne Grand Lange 1 Prices
A Lange & Sohne Grand Lange 1 Prices Lower Price A Lange & Sohne Grand Lange 1: http://www.fashion163.com/A_Lange_Sohne_Grand_Lange_1.html Luxury Watches Lower Prices: http://www.fashion163.com/ Cheapest A Lange & Sohne Watches http://www.fashion163.com/a_lange_sohne.html We guarantee our A Lange & Sohne Grand Lange 1 and A Lange & Sohne Grand Lange 1 aren't just a simple imitation. We use the same fine materials and technology that the original does. Each A Lange & Sohne Grand Lange 1 produced is examined carefully by our quality test department and every watch...

java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: org/aspectj/lang/Signature
Hi, Can anyone help me for this exception which I am getting whil trying to conenct to MYSQL server thru TOMCAT. Thanks Maneesh org.apache.commons.dbcp.SQLNestedException: Cannot load JDBC driver class 'com.mysql.jdbc.Driver', cause: java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: org/aspectj/lang/Signature at java.lang.Class.forName0(Native Method) at java.lang.Class.forName(Class.java:164) at org.apache.commons.dbcp.BasicDataSource.createDataSource(BasicDataSource.java:730) at org.apache.commons.dbcp.BasicDataSource.getConnection(BasicDataSource.java:518) at foo.DBTest.init(DBTest.java:23) at org.apache.jsp.test_jsp._jspService(test_jsp.java:51) at org.apache.jasper.runtime.HttpJspBase.service(HttpJspBase.java:137) at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:853) at org.apache.jasper.servlet.JspServletWrapper.service(JspServletWrapper.java:210) at org.apache.jasper.servlet.JspServlet.serviceJspFile(JspServlet.java:295) at org.apache.jasper.servlet.JspServlet.service(JspServlet.java:241) at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:853) at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:247) at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:193) at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardWrapperValve.invoke(StandardWrapperValve.java:256) at org.apache...

XHTML 1.1 spec: lang and xml:lang
Hello, I've looked at the latest XHTML spec from 2009-05-07. Referring to http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_commonatts In the I18N module, there are only two attributes listed: dir and xml:lang. The note in the last paragraph says: "Finally, note that the I18N collection only contains the xml:lang attribute unless the Bi- directional Text Module module is selected." This is fine, but... http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/doctype.html says (last paragraph): "This specification also adds the lang attribute to the I18N attribute c...

java.lang.Set with elements of type java.lang.Set
Roughly I do something along the lines of: Set set = new HashSet(); Set elem = new HashSet(); set.add(elem); // now we change the elem and add it again to the set elem.add(some object here); set.add(elem); I found out the hard way that 'set' may now contain 'elem' either once or twice, the reason being that 'elem.add()' changes the hashCode of elem such that it is not noticed that it is in 'set' already on the 2nd 'set.add()'. Question: What I would actually want is an IdentityHashSet() set = new IdentityHashSet() but this does not...

US-PA: King of Prussia-Excellent Opportunity for a Java Developer
************************************************************** JobCircle.com is a regional job board serving all industries and occupations in the PA, NJ, DE, NY, MD, and DC areas. We offer a regional job board, online learning, and regional job fair events for jobseekers who live in our areas of focus. To Learn More: Job Board: http://www.JobCircle.com?source=ng eLearning: http://www.JobCircle.com/courseware?source=ng Job Fairs: http://JobCircleJobFairs.com?source=ng ************************************************************** Job Title: Excellent Opportunity for a Java Developer - King of Prussia Job Location: PA: King of Prussia Pay Rate: DOE Job Length: full time Start Date: 2006-06-21 Company Name: Gestalt, LLC Contact: Jennifer Curran Phone: E-mail only Fax: 610-768-0864 Description: Gestalt is a new breed of international business and technology services firm. We have had exceptional success and have won many awards including: Philadelphia Business Journal's Best Place to Work, Eastern Technology Council's Growth Company of the Year, New Jersey Technology Council's Growth Company of the Year and Military Training and Technology Magazine's Top 100 Our goal is to develop practical yet innovative solutions that drive competitive advantage in complex decision environments. Gestalt is an essential partner to some of the world's most vital organizations in the defense and energy ...

Error occurred during intialization of VM java/lang/NoClassDefFoundError: java/lang/Object
Good day to all, I have installed the j2se/netbeans binary bundle on red hat 9. I can run everything perfectly as root but when I try to compile with any other user I get: Error occurred during intialization of VM java/lang/NoClassDefFoundError: java/lang/Object When I saw this it seemed like a permissions problem but I checked the permissions and everything seemed fine. All users have execute permissions of javac and java. I have read other threads dealing with the same or similar problem but have not reached any solution yet. I would appreciate if anyone that has run into this type of problem and has solved it if he/she could give me a hand or if anyone could just point out what I should be looking for in this type of problem. Thanks in advance... gek ...

US-PA: King of Prussia-Excellent Opportunity for a Java Developer
************************************************************** JobCircle.com is a regional job board serving all industries and occupations in the PA, NJ, DE, NY, MD, and DC areas. We offer a regional job board, online learning, and regional job fair events for jobseekers who live in our areas of focus. To Learn More: Job Board: http://www.JobCircle.com?source=ng eLearning: http://www.JobCircle.com/courseware?source=ng Job Fairs: http://JobCircleJobFairs.com?source=ng ************************************************************** Job Title: Excellen...

CheckBox in Column of JTable: Exception: java.lang.String cannot be cast to java.lang.Boolean
Hello, I have discovered a hidden error. My project was working for awhile, but then I started to get the below error. My error comes from the fact that I'm using a checkbox in a jtable, and I'm using the below "getColumnClass". Thank you, compile: run: Exception in thread "AWT-EventQueue-0" java.lang.ClassCastException: java.lang.String cannot be cast to java.lang.Boolean at javax.swing.JTable$BooleanRenderer.getTableCellRendererComponent(JTable.java:5412) at javax.swing.JTable.prepareRenderer(JTable.java:5735) at javax.swing.plaf.basic.BasicTableUI.paintCell(BasicTableUI.java:2114) at javax.swing.plaf.basic.BasicTableUI.paintCells(BasicTableUI.java:2016) at javax.swing.plaf.basic.BasicTableUI.paint(BasicTableUI.java:1812) at javax.swing.plaf.ComponentUI.update(ComponentUI.java:161) at javax.swing.JComponent.paintComponent(JComponent.java:778) at javax.swing.JComponent.paint(JComponent.java:1054) at javax.swing.JComponent.paintToOffscreen(JComponent.java:5221) at javax.swing.RepaintManager$PaintManager.paintDoubleBuffered(RepaintManager.java:1482) at javax.swing.RepaintManager$PaintManager.paint(RepaintManager.java:1413) at javax.swing.RepaintManager.paint(RepaintManager.java:1206) at javax.swing.JComponent._paintImmediately(JComponent.java:5169) at javax.swing.JComponent.paintImmediately(JComponent.java:4980) at javax.swing.RepaintManager.paintDirtyRegions(RepaintManager.java:770) at javax.swing.RepaintM...

A Lange & Sohne Watches: Discount A Lange & Sohne Watch High Quality Watches
A Lange & Sohne Watches: Discount A Lange & Sohne Watch High Quality Watches WelCome to Watches http://www.pxhelp.com/ Discount A Lange & Sohne Watches http://a-lange-sohne-watches.pxhelp.com/ A Lange & Sohne is the top famous watch brand in the world. The style of this watch is elegant in craft and fashion. It is graceful and noble. The perfect union of technology and craft, the guarantee of A Lange & Sohne's brand that is similar to the classical graceful design surmounts the space and time. It unfolds the true macroscopic field of vision and the aesthetic standard...

The Manifesto of a Rule
--- Post No 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just imagine, for one second, just for one tiny second - that you may be a king of anything, even the King of news. Well, now is my second, yeah, bless you. So, from now on, I'm the self uprisen the King of the News, News Department of Internet. So, let's read it again before it slips you - I'm the King of News, department of Internet. -- The King --- Post No 2 -----------------------------------------------------...

Error occurred during initialization of VM java/lang/NoClassDefFoundError: java/lang/Object (ant/tomcat/spring)
Hi, I've been trying to get Spring working with ant and tomcat. Ant was building just fine, but I came in today and tried to build it and got this: Error occurred during initialization of VM java/lang/NoClassDefFoundError: java/lang/Object ?!?! Makes no sense to me. There _is_ an older version of java installed on my machine; but JAVA_HOME and ANT_HOME are set to the correct paths, and <which java>and <java -version> produce the correct version. Any help would greatly alleviate my frustration! Thanks in advance... Courtney ...

Error occurred during initialization of VM java/lang/NoClassDefFoundError: java/lang/Object (ant/tomcat/spring)
Hi, I've been trying to get Spring working with ant and tomcat. Ant was building just fine, but I came in today and tried to build it and got this: Error occurred during initialization of VM java/lang/NoClassDefFoundError: java/lang/Object ?!?! Makes no sense to me. There _is_ an older version of java installed on my machine; but JAVA_HOME and ANT_HOME are set to the correct paths, and <which java>and <java -version> produce the correct version. Any help would greatly alleviate my frustration! Thanks in advance... Courtney ...

Web resources about - GEORGE MARSAGLIA, KING OF PRNGs - comp.lang.pl1

George Marsaglia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He is also known for developing some of the most commonly used methods for generating random numbers and using them to produce random samples ...

Marsaglia of Italy captures 1st World Cup race
Matteo Marsaglia of Italy took big risks on a challenging super-G course for his first World Cup victory.

M
This page is part of © FOTW Flags Of The World website Split list of keywords beginning with Last modified: 2006-09-03 Keywords: (no keywords) ...

canada.com Sports
canada.com Sports - your main source for the latest sports news, scores, standings, video highlights and more. Get the most up-to-date sport ...

Random Number Generator (RNG) Certified by iTech Labs
Random Number Generator Certified by iTech Labs on 24th March 2014

Alpine Skiing - FIS-SKI
FIS-Ski - International Ski Federation

Commits · apache/openoffice · GitHub
openoffice - Mirror of Apache OpenOffice George Marsaglia's KISS algorithm is a rather simple implementationof a random number generator but ...

Language Learning Platform Fluentify Takes In $410K Angel Investment - TechCrunch
... a London-based videoconferencing language learning platform founded last year, has closed a $410,000 angel investment, led by Stefano Marsaglia,.. ...

The Lost Abbey - Crusade
They were told not to eat the fruit from the apple tree. It was off limits and the fruit was forbidden. They were tempted by the serpent and ...

Will Sgt. Bergdahl Be Left Behind in Afghanistan?
WASHINGTON The case of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, held by the Taliban since 2009, has arisen again as the U.S. and other countries engage in diplomatic ...

Resources last updated: 3/19/2016 6:30:53 PM