| Author |
Message |
Xah Lee
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:20 pm
Post subject: the asterisk |
|
|
i was checking wikipedia for some personal reasons on the asterisk.
because, i'm a computer programer and in recent years am addicted
somewhat to the bullet in unicode: •, and am starting to use it a lot
in supplant of the asterisk * in many of my website writings.
however, in the back of my mind i was thinking, perhaps this too much
fluff... because although the glyph • is the de facto bullet used to
indicate items, but asterisk as a bullet isn't out of place either.
Besides, i really do like the asterisk character for some reason.
(probably may favorite char out of all the ascii code. That is, out of
all characters you can find on standard computer keyboard)
by a whim i though of looking up wikipedia on it, as i do read
wikipedia every day, but am not sure it'd say much but LO AND BEHOLD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterisk
it is filled with info!
wikipedia has come of age.
Xah
xah@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:35 pm
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
That entry is a good example of why one needs to be cautious when using
Wikipedia.
The unsupported statement that the asterisk is rooted in "the need of
the printers of family trees in feudal times for a symbol to indicate
date of birth" is, shall we say, a bit dodgy (given that both the
symbol and the word for it predate the invention of moveable type).
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James Gifford
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:36 pm
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
"Xah Lee" <xah@xahlee.org> wrote:
| Quote: | wikipedia has come of age.
|
Even the brain-dead can "come of age."
--
|=- James Gifford = FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY -=|
|=- So... your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? -=|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CDB
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:52 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
"Harvey Van Sickle" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9700A952DD46Bwhhvans@80.5.182.99...
| Quote: | On 31 Oct 2005, Xah Lee wrote
|
[...]
| Quote: | BEHOLD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterisk
That entry is a good example of why one needs to be cautious when
using
Wikipedia.
The unsupported statement that the asterisk is rooted in "the need
of
the printers of family trees in feudal times for a symbol to
indicate
date of birth" is, shall we say, a bit dodgy (given that both the
symbol and the word for it predate the invention of moveable type).
|
Also, "-iskos" being a Greek diminutive ending, it would be from the
Greek "aster", combining form "aster-", rather than from "astron" or
from the Latin form of it that they cite, "astrum". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Ciszek
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:20 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
In article <dk5nht$acs$1@pc.tampabay.rr.com>,
Hactar <ebenONE@tampabay.ARE-ARE.com.unmunge> wrote:
| Quote: |
And "= E2 = 80 = A2" (spaces added) is a good example of why using a
bullet is a bad idea, especially when you can't control the charset (or
whatever) used. When I responded, the "bullet" appeared as a-circumflex
space cent, or maybe "•". Those are two different interpretations of
the same data, neither one of which is what you meant.
|
That is so weird--I *was* seeing a-with-a-caret,ASCII caret, at sign,
cent; when I went to reply to this message in vi, though, it switched
to a-with-a-caret, ASCII tilde, at sign, cent. I am using PuTTY and
tried both the ISO-8859-1 and ISO-8859-15 character sets. Why would
the character look different in vi? Once this posts, I can see if
it "stayed" a tilde or went back to being a caret.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled | |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Ciszek
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:23 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
In article <dk68ru$n5k$1@reader2.panix.com>,
Paul Ciszek <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <dk5nht$acs$1@pc.tampabay.rr.com>,
Hactar <ebenONE@tampabay.ARE-ARE.com.unmunge> wrote:
And "= E2 = 80 = A2" (spaces added) is a good example of why using a
bullet is a bad idea, especially when you can't control the charset (or
whatever) used. When I responded, the "bullet" appeared as a-circumflex
space cent, or maybe "•". Those are two different interpretations of
the same data, neither one of which is what you meant.
That is so weird--I *was* seeing a-with-a-caret,ASCII caret, at sign,
cent; when I went to reply to this message in vi, though, it switched
to a-with-a-caret, ASCII tilde, at sign, cent. I am using PuTTY and
tried both the ISO-8859-1 and ISO-8859-15 character sets. Why would
the character look different in vi? Once this posts, I can see if
it "stayed" a tilde or went back to being a caret.
|
When my reply appeared, the character had gone back to being an ASCII
caret. Now that I am replying in VI again, it has gone back to a tilde.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled | |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hactar
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:25 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
In article <Xns9700A952DD46Bwhhvans@80.5.182.99>,
Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On 31 Oct 2005, Xah Lee wrote
i was checking wikipedia for some personal reasons on the
asterisk. because, i'm a computer programer and in recent years am
addicted somewhat to the bullet in unicode: •, and am starting
to use it a lot in supplant of the asterisk * in many of my
website writings.
however, in the back of my mind i was thinking, perhaps this too
much fluff... because although the glyph • is the de facto
bullet used to indicate items, but asterisk as a bullet isn't out
of place either. Besides, i really do like the asterisk character
for some reason. (probably may favorite char out of all the ascii
code. That is, out of all characters you can find on standard
computer keyboard)
by a whim i though of looking up wikipedia on it, as i do read
wikipedia every day, but am not sure it'd say much but LO AND
BEHOLD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterisk
That entry is a good example of why one needs to be cautious when using
Wikipedia.
|
And "= E2 = 80 = A2" (spaces added) is a good example of why using a
bullet is a bad idea, especially when you can't control the charset (or
whatever) used. When I responded, the "bullet" appeared as a-circumflex
space cent, or maybe "•". Those are two different interpretations of
the same data, neither one of which is what you meant.
--
-eben ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar
VIRGO: All Virgos are extremely friendly and intelligent - except
for you. Expect a big surprise today when you wind up with your
head impaled upon a stick. -- Weird Al, _Your Horoscope for Today_ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xah Lee
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:35 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterisk
That entry is a good example of why one needs to be cautious when using
Wikipedia.
|
although this is a good advice, but in conjunction one must also be
cautious with itself. To wit:
if you were to sit thru highschools at this moment, of the thousand,
millions, of highschools around the world. It is not a question —
assuming you are knowledgeable of certain subjects — that you'll find
lots of mistake taught to our young. And, to think about it, these
mistakes are rather unavoidable — you cannot expect all highschool
teachers being professors and unerring. Nevertheless, these millions of
teachings went on, and on the whole, it benefit the whole world with
extreme impact.
the gist of this insight, is that information must not solely be judged
on correctness, but also availability, in the context of human animals
benefaction. Therefore wikipedia, even scholarly speaking are filled
with errors, some egregious (because the fucking wikipedian morons with
their fucking NPOV and OpenSource fucking fanaticism et al), but
nevertheless on the whole, it is extremely useful and practically 100%
reliable.
Xah
xah@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
| Quote: | The unsupported statement that the asterisk is rooted in "the need of
the printers of family trees in feudal times for a symbol to indicate
date of birth" is, shall we say, a bit dodgy (given that both the
symbol and the word for it predate the invention of moveable type). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darkon
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:36 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
Hactar <ebenONE@tampabay.ARE-ARE.com.unmunge> wrote:
| Quote: | In article <Xns9700A952DD46Bwhhvans@80.5.182.99>,
Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 31 Oct 2005, Xah Lee wrote
i was checking wikipedia for some personal reasons on the
asterisk. because, i'm a computer programer and in recent years
am addicted somewhat to the bullet in unicode: •, and am
starting to use it a lot in supplant of the asterisk * in many
of my website writings.
however, in the back of my mind i was thinking, perhaps this
too much fluff... because although the glyph • is the de
facto bullet used to indicate items, but asterisk as a bullet
isn't out of place either. Besides, i really do like the
asterisk character for some reason. (probably may favorite char
out of all the ascii code. That is, out of all characters you
can find on standard computer keyboard)
by a whim i though of looking up wikipedia on it, as i do read
wikipedia every day, but am not sure it'd say much but LO AND
BEHOLD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterisk
That entry is a good example of why one needs to be cautious when
using Wikipedia.
And "= E2 = 80 = A2" (spaces added) is a good example of why using
a bullet is a bad idea, especially when you can't control the
charset (or whatever) used. When I responded, the "bullet"
appeared as a-circumflex space cent, or maybe "•". Those are
two different interpretations of the same data, neither one of
which is what you meant.
|
• looks like a-circumflex Euro cent in the font I use to read
Usenet (Verdana 14pt). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:46 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
On 31 Oct 2005, Hactar wrote
| Quote: | In article <Xns9700A952DD46Bwhhvans@80.5.182.99>,
Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 31 Oct 2005, Xah Lee wrote
|
-snip-
| Quote: | however, in the back of my mind i was thinking, perhaps this too
much fluff... because although the glyph • is the de facto
bullet used to indicate items, but asterisk as a bullet isn't
out of place either. Besides, i really do like the asterisk
character for some reason. (probably may favorite char out of
all the ascii code. That is, out of all characters you can find
on standard computer keyboard)
|
-snip-
| Quote: | That entry is a good example of why one needs to be cautious when
using Wikipedia.
And "= E2 = 80 = A2" (spaces added) is a good example of why using
a bullet is a bad idea, especially when you can't control the
charset (or whatever) used. When I responded, the "bullet"
appeared as a-circumflex space cent, or maybe "•". Those are
two different interpretations of the same data, neither one of
which is what you meant.
|
Ummm...your sentence seems to imply that I used a bullet point, but if
you'll kindly check the attributions, you'll find that I didn't.
(Nor would I, for precisely the reason you state.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:57 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
On 31 Oct 2005, Xah Lee wrote
| Quote: |
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterisk
That entry is a good example of why one needs to be cautious when
using Wikipedia.
although this is a good advice, but in conjunction one must also
be cautious with itself. To wit:
if you were to sit thru highschools at this moment, of the
thousand, millions, of highschools around the world. It is not a
question — assuming you are knowledgeable of certain subjects
— that you'll find lots of mistake taught to our young. And, to
think about it, these mistakes are rather unavoidable — you
cannot expect all highschool teachers being professors and
unerring. Nevertheless, these millions of teachings went on, and
on the whole, it benefit the whole world with extreme impact.
the gist of this insight, is that information must not solely be
judged on correctness, but also availability, in the context of
human animals benefaction.
|
That seems to say that "Any information, no matter how inaccurate, is
better than no information at all".
I do not accept that.
| Quote: | Therefore wikipedia, even scholarly speaking are filled with
errors, some egregious (because the fucking wikipedian morons with
their fucking NPOV and OpenSource fucking fanaticism et al), but
nevertheless on the whole, it is extremely useful and practically
100% reliable.
|
If Wikipedia can be shown to contain factual errors -- which it can --
it is patently wrong to state that it is "practically 100% reliable".
No matter how useful you may find it to be, Wikipedia is simply not a
reliable source of factual information. The only way to ensure that
factual statements that one finds in Wikipedia are accurate is to
verify them using other sources -- which defeats the purpose of
referring to it, and thus negates its usefulness.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James Gifford
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:02 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
"Xah Lee" <xah@xahlee.org> wrote:
| Quote: | Therefore wikipedia [...] on the whole, [...] is extremely useful and
practically 100% reliable.
|
Egads.
I bet you think all knowledge can be found with Google, too.
I am a pinnacle expert on at least one subject of wide interest - do any
research at all and my name is one of two that will come up as a final
authority. I do not take votes from the internet or the audience as to
whether my data is correct. No majority vote overcomes true expertise in
ANY field; there are few cases where collective partial knowledge can
equate to expertise.
In the Wikipedia entries related to my field, I can spot many errors -
mostly small and subtle, but a couple of whoppers. In the many areas
where I have a strong interest and some experience and background, I can
spot similar errors in related entries, although perhaps with less
authority.
I *do not* trust its entries on subjects with which I am unfamiliar for
exactly that reason - the information could be liberally smeared with
bullshit and I'd have no immediate way to smell it. It's not a matter of
the unavoidable errors or differences of opinion that make their way into
reference works; it's a matter of being able to assign some reasonable
degree of trust to what's written there. And you can't.
I suspect there isn't an entry in Wikipedia that would pass a true
expert's vetting. And that's the difference between a chummy, collective-
knowledge assembly akin to the transcript of dorm-room bull sessions, and
a real reference tool that's been written by experts, vetted by other
experts, and edited by someone who knew how to present the information
clearly.
Wikipedia is just another fuckin' web page, without a shred of
credibility. While its entries may be convenient, none of them stands any
higher or with any greater degree of trustworthiness than any other
questionable web page on the net - perhaps less so because of the wiki
nature of it. The increasing use of it as an authority and a final
reference disturbs me greatly.
--
|=- James Gifford = FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY -=|
|=- So... your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? -=| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PR
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:08 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
"Harvey Van Sickle" wrote:
| Quote: | ...one needs to be cautious when using Wikipedia.
|
I was at first enamored with Wikipedia, but upon thinking about it, what
kind of encyclopedia would result if everyone and anyone who had a whim to
edit the thing, could do so? An inaccurate one. It's the same reason
do-it-yourself surgery clinics haven't caught on so well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Towse
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:16 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
Xah Lee wrote:
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterisk
That entry is a good example of why one needs to be cautious when using
Wikipedia.
although this is a good advice, but in conjunction one must also be
cautious with itself. To wit:
if you were to sit thru highschools at this moment, of the thousand,
millions, of highschools around the world.
|
=end of sentence=
I don't understand this sentence.
| Quote: | It is not a question —
assuming you are knowledgeable of certain subjects — that you'll find
lots of mistake taught to our young. And, to think about it, these
mistakes are rather unavoidable — you cannot expect all highschool
teachers being professors and unerring.
|
Professors are not unerring. Untruths are taught as fact. (We will =not=
start up the ID v. evolution debate ...)
Students and public should learn research techniques to validate truth
or untruth of things "known to be true."
Wikipedia, resource that it is, is not unerring.
| Quote: | Nevertheless, these millions of
teachings went on, and on the whole, it benefit the whole world with
extreme impact.
|
.... and sometimes an untruth can have an extreme negative impact.
| Quote: | the gist of this insight, is that information must not solely be judged
on correctness, but also availability, in the context of human animals
benefaction.
|
Quantity not quality? Loads of untrue information are better than
nothing? Not if one is seeking the truth, eh? Wikipedia, like the Web,
should be checked and cross-checked.
| Quote: | Therefore wikipedia, even scholarly speaking are filled
with errors, some egregious (because the fucking wikipedian morons with
their fucking NPOV and OpenSource fucking fanaticism et al), but
nevertheless on the whole, it is extremely useful and practically 100%
reliable.
|
"practically 100% reliable" in what context? Reliable as an unquestioned
source of truth? No. If you're looking for truths, should you accept
wikipedia information as a reliable source? No.
| Quote: | The unsupported statement that the asterisk is rooted in "the need of
the printers of family trees in feudal times for a symbol to indicate
date of birth" is, shall we say, a bit dodgy (given that both the
symbol and the word for it predate the invention of moveable type).
|
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://www.internet-resources.com/writers> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hactar
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:58 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
In article <Xns9700BEEC1FCA7whhvans@62.253.170.163>,
Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On 31 Oct 2005, Hactar wrote
In article <Xns9700A952DD46Bwhhvans@80.5.182.99>,
Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 31 Oct 2005, Xah Lee wrote
-snip-
however, in the back of my mind i was thinking, perhaps this too
much fluff... because although the glyph • is the de facto
bullet used to indicate items, but asterisk as a bullet isn't
out of place either. Besides, i really do like the asterisk
character for some reason. (probably may favorite char out of
all the ascii code. That is, out of all characters you can find
on standard computer keyboard)
-snip-
That entry is a good example of why one needs to be cautious when
using Wikipedia.
And "= E2 = 80 = A2" (spaces added) is a good example of why using
a bullet is a bad idea, especially when you can't control the
charset (or whatever) used. When I responded, the "bullet"
appeared as a-circumflex space cent, or maybe "•". Those are
two different interpretations of the same data, neither one of
which is what you meant.
Ummm...your sentence seems to imply that I used a bullet point, but if
you'll kindly check the attributions, you'll find that I didn't.
(Nor would I, for precisely the reason you state.)
|
To clarify, not Harvey Van Sickle, but Xah Lee used a bullet. Sorry if my
statement was unclear.
--
-eben ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar
Drive nail here > < for new monitor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in