From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,232e89dd4cc3c154 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!cyclone03.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!voer-me.highwinds-media.com!npeersf01.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe04.ams2.POSTED!00000000!not-for-mail Message-ID: <9uBxDBFYEdCOFA37@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> From: Chris H Newsgroups: sci.math,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG. References: <4dae2a4b$0$55577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <4dbd6e9c$0$12957$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com> <925saiFj03U7@mid.individual.net> <4dbe2304$0$12961$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com> <4dda0486$0$67782$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <4e098093$0$79550$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<$eAAhsBXEEoY$FY0vjAAGQ0Wl7>) NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.176.226.26 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Trace: newsfe04.ams2 1309266643 80.176.226.26 (Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:10:43 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:10:43 UTC Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:03:20 +0100 Xref: g2news2.google.com sci.math:242202 comp.lang.c:130777 comp.lang.fortran:44907 comp.lang.pl1:2685 comp.lang.ada:21010 Date: 2011-06-28T14:03:20+01:00 List-Id: In message , James Kuyper writes >On 06/28/2011 03:19 AM, robin wrote: >> "Georg Bauhaus" 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 /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/