Recursive acronyms - Sinclair

This is a discussion on Recursive acronyms - Sinclair ; Browsing through Wikipedia (as one does, y'know -- it's so full of itself and What Wikipedia Is Not, strange that it never mentions the three main things Wikipedia is not -- authoritative, stable or consistent), I discovered by accident that ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Recursive acronyms

  1. Recursive acronyms

    Browsing through Wikipedia (as one does, y'know -- it's so full of
    itself and What Wikipedia Is Not, strange that it never mentions the
    three main things Wikipedia is not -- authoritative, stable or
    consistent), I discovered by accident that the name of the financial-
    clearing company VISA[1] is a recursive acronym! (In the interests of
    accuracy, I'd like to point out that (strictly speaking) it is of
    course really an acrostic rather than an acronym; the word "visa"
    existed long before it was put to this use.) It stands for "Visa
    International Service Association".

    And here was I, thinking that only under Unix do such japes
    occur... ;-)

    [1]


  2. Re: Recursive acronyms

    Some recent independent research (I think it was published in Nature,
    or New Scientist but I'm not sure) concluded that Wikipedia is no more
    inaccurate than the Encylcopedia Britannica, much to the chagrin of
    the latter. As reference texts go Wikipedia is actually pretty good,
    so long as you actually check the referenced material against a third
    party source. It's a lot more accurate than a straight Google search
    anyway, which will just turn up the most linked answer, regardless of
    accuracy (which is how so much nonsense gets propagated across the
    net).


  3. Re: Recursive acronyms

    On Apr 10, 1:08 pm, "cheve...@gmail.com" wrote:
    > Some recent independent research (I think it was published in Nature,
    > or New Scientist but I'm not sure) concluded that Wikipedia is no more
    > inaccurate than the Encylcopedia Britannica, much to the chagrin of
    > the latter.


    One thing I find annoying about Wikipedia is that whether an edit is
    allowed to stand often depends on exactly who's got that page on their
    watch list; for example, some games have cheat codes listed, but
    others have any such deleted rapidly because they're deemed to be "un-
    encyclopaedic" (whatever that's supposed to mean). This can make
    editing the thing rather like headbutting a concrete wall...


  4. Re: Recursive acronyms

    cheveron@gmail.com wrote:

    > Some recent independent research (I think it was published in Nature,
    > or New Scientist but I'm not sure) concluded that Wikipedia is no more
    > inaccurate than the Encylcopedia Britannica, much to the chagrin of
    > the latter. As reference texts go Wikipedia is actually pretty good,
    > so long as you actually check the referenced material against a third
    > party source. It's a lot more accurate than a straight Google search
    > anyway, which will just turn up the most linked answer, regardless of
    > accuracy (which is how so much nonsense gets propagated across the
    > net).



    Hi cheveron@gmail.com!



    I have no good feeling about WikiPedia.

    The wild and difficult to find infos for real stuff (e.g. SINCLAIR,
    Amiga...) shouldn't be centralized, as it is the revolution as that,
    nothing else. (was it not one of the ideas about Internet...? away from
    centralising??)

    Google has learned well, IMHO. I am still not using Google, and I am
    still not finding something with Google :-). Really....

    Others like 'Alltheweb' or AltaVista is strong. Also search_MSN is
    powerful... for a looooong time, now... IMO.




    Kind regards,

    Daniel Mandic

  5. Re: Recursive acronyms

    Daniel Mandic wrote:
    > Others like 'Alltheweb' or AltaVista is strong. Also search_MSN is
    > powerful... for a looooong time, now... IMO.


    You're ****ing joking, right?

    While I don't believe a monoculture is healthy and the existence of
    competent search engines besides Google would be a Good Thing, these are
    not they.

    Alltheweb and Altavista are both owned by Yahoo (via Overture, AFAIK).
    The search results aren't bad but they're not compelling enough for me
    to change my home page.

    MSN is simply terrible.

    Back on topic, Wikipedia (if you feel you can trust it - up to you,
    mate) has a list of non-technical recursive acronyms:



  6. Re: Recursive acronyms

    cheveron@gmail.com wibbled:

    > Some recent independent research (I think it was published in Nature,
    > or New Scientist but I'm not sure) concluded that Wikipedia is no more
    > inaccurate than the Encylcopedia Britannica, much to the chagrin of
    > the latter. As reference texts go Wikipedia is actually pretty good,
    > so long as you actually check the referenced material against a third
    > party source. It's a lot more accurate than a straight Google search
    > anyway, which will just turn up the most linked answer, regardless of
    > accuracy (which is how so much nonsense gets propagated across the
    > net).


    It was Nature magazine. Britannica's response was interesting, as I
    recall. They claimed that several of the comparisons were not
    accurate, since the articles they compared weren't actually from
    Britannica at all, but the "Yearbook" and "Student Encyclopaedia".

    I don't actually like Wikipedia, but I do use it. The article about it
    on The Register finished with an interesting quote, which I think
    summarises the problem I have with Wikipedia: "What do these seemingly
    disparate projects have in common? The idea that you can vote for the
    truth."

    --
    Matt
    www.mattrudge.net

  7. Re: Recursive acronyms

    fuzzix wrote:

    Hi fuzzix!


    > MSN is simply terrible.


    msn search is my favourite... nothing wrong with it.

    > Back on topic, Wikipedia (if you feel you can trust it - up to you,
    > mate) has a list of non-technical recursive acronyms:
    >
    > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursi...nical_examples
    > >




    Yes! No, I meant the technical stuff. (What is a kickstart, what is a
    ROM, etc etc .. :-) ! ?)




    Best regards,

    Daniel Mandic


    P.S.: the ****ing links to various ROM sites are not helping. Not via
    http nor via E-mail, :-|.

  8. Re: Recursive acronyms


    "Daniel Mandic" wrote in message
    news:461cf5f2$0$2305$91cee783@newsreader01.highway .telekom.at...

    > Yes! No, I meant the technical stuff. (What is a kickstart, what is a
    > ROM, etc etc .. :-) ! ?)


    Kickstart is a method of starting an internal combustion engine with a foot
    operated crank.

    Niall



  9. Re: Recursive acronyms

    Niall Wallace wrote:

    > Kickstart is a method of starting an internal combustion engine with
    > a foot operated crank.
    >
    > Niall



    Hi Niall!



    Of course... (Thanks )

    And ROM is a computer chip. (having a half-pund of ATARI
    ST/TT ROM's here, saved, out of a big rubbish-container full with
    thrown in ATARI's. Also ok for other eprom purposes beside TOS....)





    Best regards,

    Daniel Mandic

  10. Re: Recursive acronyms

    In article <1176224105.705522.239340@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>,
    wrote:
    >Browsing through Wikipedia (as one does, y'know -- it's so full of
    >itself and What Wikipedia Is Not, strange that it never mentions the
    >three main things Wikipedia is not -- authoritative, stable or
    >consistent), I discovered by accident that the name of the financial-
    >clearing company VISA[1] is a recursive acronym! (In the interests of
    >accuracy, I'd like to point out that (strictly speaking) it is of
    >course really an acrostic rather than an acronym; the word "visa"
    >existed long before it was put to this use.) It stands for "Visa
    >International Service Association".
    >
    >And here was I, thinking that only under Unix do such japes
    >occur... ;-)
    >
    >[1]
    >




    Apparently so is 'Link' (as in the cash machine network). Wikipedia's
    got a list of potential candidates (technical and non-tech) here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_acronym



    Chris...

    --
    \ Chris Johnson \ NP:
    \ cej@nightwolf.org.uk \
    \ http://cej.nightwolf.org.uk/ \
    \ http://redclaw.org.uk/ ~---------------------------------------

  11. Re: Recursive acronyms

    On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:32:58 +0100, "Niall Wallace"
    wrote:

    >
    >"Daniel Mandic" wrote in message
    >news:461cf5f2$0$2305$91cee783@newsreader01.highway .telekom.at...
    >
    >> Yes! No, I meant the technical stuff. (What is a kickstart, what is a
    >> ROM, etc etc .. :-) ! ?)

    >
    >Kickstart is a method of starting an internal combustion engine with a foot
    >operated crank.


    And it's neither recursive nor acronymic (nor even acrostic), so it's
    off-topic for this thread.

  12. Re: Recursive acronyms

    On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Matt Rudge wrote:

    > I don't actually like Wikipedia, but I do use it. The article about it
    > on The Register finished with an interesting quote, which I think
    > summarises the problem I have with Wikipedia: "What do these seemingly
    > disparate projects have in common? The idea that you can vote for the
    > truth."


    Aye - I also use the Wikipedia for research, but *only* for pointers. I
    wouldn't trust any information on it that cannot be confirmed elsewhere,
    which sorts of defeats the purpose of it being an encyclopedia whilst at
    the same time being a useful research tool.

    --
    Nick Humphries, nick@egyptus.co.uk http://www.egyptus.co.uk/
    Your Sinclair Rock'n'Roll Years http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/
    YSRnRY documentary (1987 OUT NOW!) http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/tvprog/
    The Tipshop http://www.the-tipshop.co.uk/
    ZX Video and WWW Alerts http://www.the-tipshop.co.uk/cgi-bin/rsscheck.pl

  13. Re: Recursive acronyms

    On Apr 10, 6:08 pm, "cheve...@gmail.com" wrote:
    > Some recent independent research (I think it was published in Nature,
    > or New Scientist but I'm not sure) concluded that Wikipedia is no more
    > inaccurate than the Encylcopedia Britannica,


    Aha, but it's original research, and therefore (if you believe
    Wikipedia) crap. :-)


+ Reply to Thread