flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Intel Readies Massive Multicore Processors

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
haha, Goplat is right, besides, if you look at the article there is a similar mispelling "Egyptian barley samples have been found which date to 17,00018,300 years".

Since the sample is 3,807-3,806 years back and that is less than 10,000 now is more reasonable.

After a 3 hour nap things are more clear Razz
Post 23 Jun 2007, 22:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
This definition is the one that's relevant in a discussion about natural science.


Can't argue with a dictionary... So i have to accept that.

Quote:
In a topic about the "pop" instruction in x86 assembly, would you talk about popcorn? Because that's essentially what you're doing when you're trying to claim that "theory" implies something that you could reasonably doubt.


Actually, pop can be used as a verb that would give a visual meaning to the instruction. "Pop the register stack." Pop in that case is a verb, and that meaning is in the dictionary, it just dosn't have the word "computer" beside it.

Quote:
Gee, it couldn't possibly be that the original article had a dash in there, could it? When it mentions the "MayJune" issue of American Scientist, they must be talking about some weird new month I've never heard of!


To be honest, the thought never crossed my mind. Perhaps they should fix that. What i find even more interesting is that other parts of the document *DO* have hyphens. I'm finding a few more numbers like this as well. Typo or not, i wouldn't question the possibility of being misleading. While the information on the site can be regarded as true, i still believe that it is possible (since it's clearly anti-creationist) that some of the things are "typoed" to look a certain way contrary to the original figures. Though i'm too lazy to check, there could also be misleading vocabulary in there that would elude all of us as being misleading, considering something as simple as the dashes eluded some of us so easily.

Plus, i would much rather hear a little more about carbon dating being debated on less political issues... It's hard to get reputable information when politics are involved.

Quote:
haha, Goplat is right, besides, if you look at the article there is a similar mispelling "Egyptian barley samples have been found which date to 17,00018,300 years".


I think some one needs to learn how to type... Even i remember the - thing when using dates. I've found other mis-spellings but i ignored them since they were just typoes, not mis-leading.
Post 24 Jun 2007, 01:16
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
<flamebait>
Who cares about carbon dating anyway, we all know that GOD ALMIGHTY (ALL PRAISE HIM, JA-BA-JEEEH!) created the earth in his INFINITE WISDOM AND GLORY.
</flamebait>

Btw, kohlrak, did you know that certain fields of work have their own specialized terminology? You might try googling for "dictionary of <xxx>".
Post 24 Jun 2007, 15:59
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
<flamebait>
Who cares about carbon dating anyway, we all know that GOD ALMIGHTY (ALL PRAISE HIM, JA-BA-JEEEH!) created the earth in his INFINITE WISDOM AND GLORY.
</flamebait>


I must restrain myself... Must.... not.... do.... it.... Though in all reality i don't see merit for that kind of behavior.

Quote:
Btw, kohlrak, did you know that certain fields of work have their own specialized terminology? You might try googling for "dictionary of <xxx>".


Oddly enough, you'd think the science words would be better documented (as science is older and had more time to be documented) than computer words. Yet, that oddly isn't true... I wonder why... Or perhaps i really don't wonder why...
Post 24 Jun 2007, 17:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.