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: 1094ba,232e89dd4cc3c154
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 103376,232e89dd4cc3c154
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gid8d3408f8c3,gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Gib Bogle <g.bogle@auckland.ac.nz>
Newsgroups: sci.math,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG.
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 18:49:53 +1200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <iumf2l$uag$1@speranza.aioe.org>
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>
	<iplmk8$2s6$1@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk>
	<4dda0486$0$67782$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
	<4dda09ca$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
	<4e098093$0$79550$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
	<1bei2e54d4.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>
	<lANXICIpMgCOFAmv@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>	<iudg27$1ik$3@speranza.aioe.org>
 <86iprpz1jy.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan>
NNTP-Posting-Host: g2qx4yoS+W7m4fJcL5PhWA.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: g2news1.google.com sci.math:225345 comp.lang.fortran:42787
 comp.lang.ada:20065
Date: 2011-07-02T18:49:53+12:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.