Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #2978 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-04-28 11:14 +1000 |
| Last post | 2011-06-29 09:50 -0400 |
| Articles | 18 on this page of 78 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-04-28 11:14 +1000
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "e p chandler" <epc8@juno.com> - 2011-04-28 07:42 -0400
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Gib Bogle <g.bogle@auckland.ac.nz> - 2011-04-29 12:55 +1200
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. David Bernier <david250@videotron.ca> - 2011-04-28 21:50 -0400
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-29 14:09 +1200
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-04-28 23:01 -0400
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-29 15:09 +1200
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Uno <merrilljensen@q.com> - 2011-05-08 00:34 -0700
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Marni Zollinger <marni@altgreendesigns.com> - 2011-05-10 23:38 -0600
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-04-29 07:15 +0100
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. David Bernier <david250@videotron.ca> - 2011-04-28 23:16 -0400
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-04-29 02:34 +0000
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-04-29 01:04 -0600
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-04-30 20:48 +1000
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-05-04 19:12 -0600
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-04-29 08:13 -0700
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-04-29 17:41 +0000
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-04-29 12:53 -0700
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-05 16:38 -0700
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-04-29 22:45 +0000
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> - 2011-04-29 23:36 -0500
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-04-29 22:43 +0000
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-04-29 19:43 +1000
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Thad Smith <ThadSmith@acm.org> - 2011-05-01 08:31 -0700
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-02 07:58 +1200
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-01 20:01 -0400
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-02 12:42 +1200
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-01 22:34 -0400
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-02 02:50 +0000
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Thad Smith <ThadSmith@acm.org> - 2011-05-01 21:21 -0700
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-05-02 08:31 +0100
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-05-23 16:52 +1000
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-05-23 14:18 +1000
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-05-23 17:20 +1000
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-05-23 16:52 +1000
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-05-23 16:52 +1000
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-05-23 16:53 +1000
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> - 2011-05-23 09:16 +0200
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Ilmari Karonen <usenet2@vyznev.invalid> - 2011-05-26 22:06 +0000
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-06-28 17:19 +1000
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "Vinzent Hoefler" <0439279208b62c95f1880bf0f8776eeb@t-domaingrabbing.de> - 2011-06-28 10:44 +0200
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-28 10:19 +0100
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> - 2011-06-28 11:14 +0200
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-06-28 21:59 +1000
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-28 13:16 +0100
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-06-28 11:44 -0400
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-28 08:33 -0400
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> - 2011-06-28 15:53 +0200
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Brian Salter-Duke <b_duke@bigpond.com.au> - 2011-06-28 22:39 +0000
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-28 08:32 -0400
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-28 14:03 +0100
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-28 10:25 -0400
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-28 16:01 +0100
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-28 20:20 -0400
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-29 01:38 -0700
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-28 10:04 -0600
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-28 17:36 +0100
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-28 10:51 -0600
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-28 20:27 -0400
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-28 19:00 -0600
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-29 19:48 +0300
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-28 10:52 -0600
Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. David Bernier <david250@videotron.ca> - 2011-06-28 13:06 -0400
Re: Wiki "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> - 2011-06-29 10:00 +1000
Re: Wiki James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-28 20:25 -0400
Re: Wiki Ivan Shmakov <ivan@gray.siamics.net> - 2011-06-29 16:03 +0700
Re: Wiki Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-30 13:39 +0100
Re: Wiki Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-01 22:15 +0100
Re: Wiki Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-28 18:52 -0600
Re: Wiki James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-29 05:52 -0400
Re: Wiki Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 10:12 -0400
Re: Wiki Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-29 14:29 -0600
Re: Wiki Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-06-29 07:43 +0100
Re: Wiki Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 10:10 -0400
Re: Wiki Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-29 19:42 +0300
Re: Wiki Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-29 18:09 +0100
Re: Wiki Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-06-29 18:48 +0100
Re: Wiki Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 09:50 -0400
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-29 19:48 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87vcvo7fdb.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #7175 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-28 10:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1b8vsl6gq5.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #7149 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Bernier <david250@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-28 13:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iud1md09qd@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #7149 |
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>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "robin" <robin51@dodo.mapson.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-29 10:00 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Wiki |
| Message-ID | <4e0a6b42$0$79552$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> |
| In reply to | #7146 |
"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 ľcontrollers 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-28 20:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Wiki |
| Message-ID | <iudre4$1qc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7171 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ivan Shmakov <ivan@gray.siamics.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-29 16:03 +0700 |
| Subject | Re: Wiki |
| Message-ID | <867h85nh5r.fsf@gray.siamics.net> |
| In reply to | #7174 |
>>>>> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-30 13:39 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Wiki |
| Message-ID | <WV2L9UEC6GDOFAIe@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #7195 |
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/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-01 22:15 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Wiki |
| Message-ID | <4E0E390A.B1BB0E8D@btinternet.com> |
| In reply to | #7293 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-28 18:52 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Wiki |
| Message-ID | <1b8vsle9x9.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #7171 |
"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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-29 05:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Wiki |
| Message-ID | <iueskd$80f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7177 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-29 10:12 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Wiki |
| Message-ID | <iufbs4$965$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7192 |
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;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-29 14:29 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Wiki |
| Message-ID | <1baad0fkjx.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #7192 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-29 07:43 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Wiki |
| Message-ID | <87vcvpw32g.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #7171 |
"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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-29 10:10 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Wiki |
| Message-ID | <iufbpj$965$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7193 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-29 19:42 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Wiki |
| Message-ID | <87zkl07fn7.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #7193 |
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. Phil -- "At least you know where you are with Microsoft." "True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." -- Matthew Vernon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-29 18:09 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Wiki |
| Message-ID | <knfnhyDix1COFAUh@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #7217 |
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/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-29 18:48 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Wiki |
| Message-ID | <87iprowmun.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #7217 |
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$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net... >> > | > | >> > | > | According to Wikipedia, counting all CPUs sold, even the share >> > | > | of 8bit µcontrollers is more than a half. (They give sources for >> > | > | the numbers.) >> > | > >> > | > Wikipedia is not a reliable source. >> > | >> > | It's as reliable as any encyclopedia. What it isn't, is original >> > | research -- and it doesn't pretend to be. >> > | >> > | Do you have a more reliable source that says otherwise? >> > >> > A real encyclopedia. >> >> (assuming "real" == "printed") Which one? >> >> And much more importantly, what does it say about the proportion of >> total CPUs sold that are 8 bit microcontrollers? > > Well, I used to work for a top-10 semiconductor manufacturer and there, > by number of units, microcontrollers easily outsold 32-bit CPUs. > > Even if every moderately advanced phone has at least 3 32-bit ARM > cores on it (many have 7 or more). The number of microcontrollers in > automative applications absolutely dwarfs that. I know we were > supplying 30 processors for some vehicles, and I know we weren't the > only supplier. > > Every time they make things like microwaves more hi-tech so that they > need a 16- or 32-bit processor, they find something even dumber to > put 8-bit microcontrollers into. Just for the record, I have no dog in the fight about the proportion of microprocessors. I'm just responding to the point that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" and "a real encyclopedia" is with a gentle request for what a real encyclopedia says on the subject. -- Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-29 09:50 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Wiki |
| Message-ID | <iufaj6$tvu$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7171 |
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 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. > > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web