The first article seems also a dictionary entry about an obsolete term, written in a tongue in cheek manner, about a practice that died out once the Internet became ubuiquitous. I don't think there's much possibility of an useful article (material about hacker gatherings of the 200000's and 1980's would be more appropriate under another title), so I'm tempted to just remove that part of the article (I agree that the second part about the opcode, whilst obscure, is encyclopedic and shouldn't be removed). Anybody want to make the case that there's a useful article likely to be written here? --Robert Merkel
In any case, the programmers were perverts... ANL and ORL instructions?! HAH! (<-- lmao)
Well, you could have sex with an apple, just you couldn't be male...
Yeah, if you have a bucket fanny. --
I restarted the article under SEX (Computers) after i had seen it on BJAODN and felt it could be legitimate, not knowing it was here. I had someone nominate it for deletion, then someone else posted a redirect to here.
This has uncyclopedia written all over it, --126.96.36.199 13:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
ANY WAYS HOW WOULD LOOK UP THE WORD IN THE FIRSTPLACE??????
This is a technical article. If you are not technically-oriented, there is no reason to read it. To a computer scientist, the article makes perfect sense. The initiator of this talk obviouly has no idea how his/her computer works, if he/she believes that operation codes are obsolete.
Microprocessors cannot be programmed without opcodes, so your statement makes no sense. Historic opcodes help to teach computer scientists how things have been done, so that they may improve upon them in the future. No technical information is obsolete, unless proven incorrect in operation.
By virtue of the fact that Motorola implemented this particular opcode in a highly successful microprocessor line, it should be obvious that this page is informative to many users. Attacks by sophmoric users on this page could easilly lead to unneeded talk pages on other instruction set opcodes with multiple meanings, such as TAX, AIM, and ROL.
(Or should that be "sexion"?) :-)
I've noticed that the bit I added about the CBM64 system variable SEXY has disappeared from the page; so I looked up the history to see why it had been deleted, and found that it hadn't; it still shows there as the latest addition.
But for some reason it no longer appears on the main page, nor in the source thereof. Weird. (I've occasionally noticed this behaviour with other pages — maybe a MediaWiki bug?) 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I ought to make it clear here that by the "page source" I mean the Firefox page source ([Ctrl]+[U]), not the Wikipedia "edit this page" source, which I haven't looked at. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- In the german user manual for the C64 there's a table in Appendix N, page 153 ff. about the sprite related VIC registers. The entry for the register in question lables the bits SEXY7 to SEXY0. --Marrin (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Irony in editing
The 6809's SEX instruction does a sign-extension of B into D. Since D is the unison of A and B, you no longer have any accumulators to work with, so the usual course of action would be to stash D in memory for later. Now the 6809 instruction for this is STD, meaning that on a 6809, as in life, after SEX you invariably get an STD. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to mention the fictional fabrication process mentioned on the 25120 prank datasheet? It's arguably a memory, so has some relevance to computing... Bernd Jendrissek (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)