" Apple has been going in the direction of ATI’s OpenCL acceleration architecture, the competitor to NVIDIA’s CUDA."
OpenCL is not ATI's technology. When i spot such an inacurracy in an article, i stop reading it, since i have suddenly no more reason to believe that the rest of it isn't just as inacurate
That seems completely illogical since you cannot and will not verify most of information, and since information does not come in any kinds of packets or chunks of truthfulness. Why does an incorrect statement invalidate the whole article? When you find that your dog has a flaw, you don't throw away the whole dog now, do you?
When it comes to news sources, it's best to 'throw out the whole dog' when they can't get the very basis of their usefulness correct - reporting facts.
No it's based on the number of informations you're able to verify from the article, and the number of those which are false. Also this very piece of information is not irrelevant, it is at the core of the subject at hand.
If you're able to verify a small number of "facts" presented in the article, and a big proportion of those are false, the probability the entire article is bull went from 'unknown' to 'very high', relative to your personal knowledge.
Eventually you could be wrong, but there is enough sources of information on the internet to allow me to choose not to read those i think are bogus.
Even worse, the mistake i pointed out is a very simple one. It's almost impossible to think, from the information you find on the web that openCL is ATI's equivalent to nvidia's proprietary CUDA technology. The mistake serves the article well though, by antagonizing the two technologies, and making the whole thing more sensational than it needs be. So this isn't a simple "irrelevant" mistake like you said. It's bad journalism, plain and pure.
Pieces of information from the same source are not independent with regard to reliability. To establish reliability of the source, one should take a sample of facts and verify. If you can find misinformation even without investigation, it indicates high probability that other information from the same source is incorrect.
A source either has a culture of trying to provide precise facts or it doesn't. This is fully orthogonal to the source making errors, being unintentionally ambiguous or misleading. Everyone does, accidentally. I am fully for dismissing a bad news source, but the complaint in the original comment provides no grounds. Can't condemn ruby as "slow language" because a program somebody wrote in it at one point runs slowly. Just a bit tired of extremely pedantic complaints. I understand when there's lack of writing skill, horrible ambiguitiy, or outright bullshit, but here I see a mistake irrelevant to the main point of the article. It's not a big deal really, whatever floats your boat, but these harsh complains of how "I'm never gonna read it again! It LIED! Conspiracy to boost hype!" are getting annoying.
OpenCL is not ATI's technology. When i spot such an inacurracy in an article, i stop reading it, since i have suddenly no more reason to believe that the rest of it isn't just as inacurate