"johnny_t" <nobodyis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:0256bcac$0$25052$c3e8da3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Huh, WTF are you talking about. I actually clicked on your link below
> because it was starting to get crazy. I actually used the first link,
> the one that requires the actual term "Turing Engine".
>
> This is pulled from google.
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 542 for "Turing Engine". (0.18 seconds)
Johhny,
you gotta learn how to google.
So don't do "Turing Engine" do Turing Engine, and you get Results 1 - 10
of
about 753,000 for Turing Engine. (0.27 seconds)
Now - I didn't cite the URL below, so perhaps Mr. Macon can explain why he
did that, and also why he is googling "Turing Engine" not Turing Engine.
Maybe that explains his ideas?
If you google "George Wa****ngton" you get Results 1 - 10 of about
14,700,000
for "George Wa****ngton" [definition]. (0.18 seconds)
then George Wa****ngton Results 1 - 10 of about 128,000,000 for George
Wa****ngton [definition]. (0.05 seconds)
And very early in those references you can find ACE, which is definitely
Engine, and what Turing called it, and so on!
You getting the picture?
;)
Phil Innes
>
> Copy and pasted straight of the page. And at least TWO of these links
> are for this conversation.
>
> Just man up Phil. This is not worth going to the mats for. "I am
sorry,
> you are right, it is "Turing Machine". Sheesh
>
>
>
>
> Chess One wrote:
> ** (3) GC has done more research than me! of found of 768,000 records,
600
> which... Really? This is where his comments break down into the
literally
> impossible. How can he have reviewed all of those references in order to
> make his statement? Mr. Macon should note the content of comment #9
below.
>
> or someone who speaks another
> language and has trouble with English. The following links
> prove this.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Turing+Engine%22
> http://www.google.com/search?Turing-Engine
>
|
