The nice thing about Wikipedia is that if you question the accuracy of an article, you can search for the real truth and add it to the article. In the case of Britannica the lie is on paper forever, once it is published. Imagine if you are someone famous and they incorrectly state your country of birth:
"True, but not all of those theoretically infinite number of people are experts in the field that they're checking over."
There are enough experts who check over articles. Most articles don't get very long without an expert getting it to that point. Whether or not it works in theory, it works in practise trust me.
"Even worse if they think they are expects but actually aren't."
These people are actually very helpful, they research a topic and write a short article about it, before an expert comes in and expands on it.
"Additionally, if you are an expert in that field, why would you be looking it up on Wikipedia?"
Because the articles actually are good and they are checked over by a large number of experts in the majority of cases. The number of editors and number of experts looking over an article is proportional to the popularity of an article. If an article on "Mr Silver" is neglected and innacurate, who cares if no one ever goes there to look at the article anyways.
You're an idiot. You have no idea who has reviewed the Wikipedia articles so you assume that there were no profs or anyone qualified reviewing it. You have also assumed that all Britannica's articles are checked over by profs "and such". You have no idea this is the case, and the reality is, you have no way of knowing if it was checked over or not. On Wikipedia you can check the History and see who wrote a lot of it.
With Wikipedia it may well have been written by some guy with spare time on his hands, enthusiasm, but not much knowledge. Or worse, it may have been written by an expert and then "corrected" by Jo Schmo.
Trust me, this doesn't happen. Jo Schmos don't have the time to create bogus articles or correct real articles. If there isn't an article on something, it doesn't get written until someone qualified writes it. In some cases Wikipedians write a short article (stub) with not much info and maybe a few external links until someone more knowledgable comes along to to make it better.
There are trolls, and these are easily identifiable. As on Slashdot for example. So far vandalism has been a manageable issue. Having complete revision control system for every article helps tremendously. Changes by vandals are backed out all the time.
Mod parent down. He/she doesn't know what he/she is talking out. Nothing is ripped from Brittanica except some old 1911 Britannica whose copyright has now expired.
They don't get kickbacks from projects which only give back to the commons. They only think short term and would rather get kickbacks from companies, and then kickback in the Senate and get rich.
Not true. Britannica's articles are probably checked by a handful of editors. Wikipedia's articles can be (and some are) checked over by hundreds and theoretically an infinite number of people.
Agrajag is my favourite character. Life, the Universe, and Everything was so boring unitl Agrajag came along. The bes part is when his face starts getting all lacerated by his own teeth everytime he moves his mouth.
Canada411 says there are 23 in Sudbury, pop. ~155,000. 0.15 per 1,000 people.
There are apparently 58 in London, pop. ~337,000. 0.17 per 1,000 people.
This doesn't include Donut Queen or Country Time.
I'd like to see if you know any other cities and we can see if they beat London.
This is the same technology as the previously discussed GE organic LED project - just with the physics in reverse.
, however, is wrong.
Solar cells absorb light and convert to electrons and holes, whereas OLEDs are light-emitting devices. But OLED's are made from different materials, like WOV says, they are made from oganic polymers whereas the flexible substrate solar cells are usually made with amorphous silicon. Not sputtered though, as WOV says, but usually deposted by plasma enhanced vapour deposition from silane (SiH4 gas)
A laptop with docking station does the same thing with far less luggable weight, albeit at a higher price.
# 3 GHz P4. OK, that's pretty nice.
I agree
# 1 GB RAM. Nothing special about that.
I'd say this is nice.
# 160 GB disk. So what? How many offices don't have a server to store everything on?
Why bother with a server. How big of a pain is that synching stuff with a server. Just have everything on your laptop. Work at home more easily, no need to connect to work, company can keep a tight lock on the network instead.
# DVD burner. Optional on some laptops and you can always use an external to a docking station.
Externals are expensive. The fact that this laptop comes with this at such a low price is a plus.
# Kitchen Sink. So what? Carry a small bottle of Purell in your pocket.
Good idea.
I don't see how any of your points proved your first statement: "Stupid, stupid, stupid"
IE required. Now I really wish Firefox could identify itself as IE.
"We've noticed that you're currently using a non-supported browser.
"Please switch to Internet Explorer v. 5.0.1 or later to continue.
"You can get the latest version of IE free at
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.asp.
"After downloading and installing Internet Explorer, please launch it and go to:
http://webapps.prod.there.com/register
in order to continue the registration process (you should cut and paste or write this link down for when you're ready to return)."
You do not need to switch your default browser settings."
Slashdot Mirror
New security holes!
mod parent, funny
Redhat Fedora sucks. Gentoo rules.
I didn't say an infinite number of people were required, just that it is the upper bound on the number of possible editors.
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_fun_of_Brita nnica
There are enough experts who check over articles. Most articles don't get very long without an expert getting it to that point. Whether or not it works in theory, it works in practise trust me.
"Even worse if they think they are expects but actually aren't."
These people are actually very helpful, they research a topic and write a short article about it, before an expert comes in and expands on it.
"Additionally, if you are an expert in that field, why would you be looking it up on Wikipedia?"
Because the articles actually are good and they are checked over by a large number of experts in the majority of cases. The number of editors and number of experts looking over an article is proportional to the popularity of an article. If an article on "Mr Silver" is neglected and innacurate, who cares if no one ever goes there to look at the article anyways.
You're an idiot. You have no idea who has reviewed the Wikipedia articles so you assume that there were no profs or anyone qualified reviewing it. You have also assumed that all Britannica's articles are checked over by profs "and such". You have no idea this is the case, and the reality is, you have no way of knowing if it was checked over or not. On Wikipedia you can check the History and see who wrote a lot of it.
With Wikipedia it may well have been written by some guy with spare time on his hands, enthusiasm, but not much knowledge. Or worse, it may have been written by an expert and then "corrected" by Jo Schmo. Trust me, this doesn't happen. Jo Schmos don't have the time to create bogus articles or correct real articles. If there isn't an article on something, it doesn't get written until someone qualified writes it. In some cases Wikipedians write a short article (stub) with not much info and maybe a few external links until someone more knowledgable comes along to to make it better. There are trolls, and these are easily identifiable. As on Slashdot for example. So far vandalism has been a manageable issue. Having complete revision control system for every article helps tremendously. Changes by vandals are backed out all the time.
Mod parent down. He/she doesn't know what he/she is talking out. Nothing is ripped from Brittanica except some old 1911 Britannica whose copyright has now expired.
They don't get kickbacks from projects which only give back to the commons. They only think short term and would rather get kickbacks from companies, and then kickback in the Senate and get rich.
Not true. Britannica's articles are probably checked by a handful of editors. Wikipedia's articles can be (and some are) checked over by hundreds and theoretically an infinite number of people.
Comparing these three is like comparing dumb and dumber and dumbest. I am a Gentoo slut.
Linking to a gallery slideshow is about the stupidest thing you can do.
Agrajag is my favourite character. Life, the Universe, and Everything was so boring unitl Agrajag came along. The bes part is when his face starts getting all lacerated by his own teeth everytime he moves his mouth.
Those EU Nazi racist fag bastards!!!
I can't believe no one else has mentioned that this is the exact same thing that the James Bond car used in the last James Bond movie.
while (his_mom == MILF) { teach_her(); if (you got action) break; }
Just hide it in your pocket?! There are all sorts of rules of workplaces that people constantly ignore.
Canada411 says there are 23 in Sudbury, pop. ~155,000. 0.15 per 1,000 people. There are apparently 58 in London, pop. ~337,000. 0.17 per 1,000 people. This doesn't include Donut Queen or Country Time. I'd like to see if you know any other cities and we can see if they beat London.
Tthe poster's statement:
This is the same technology as the previously discussed GE organic LED project - just with the physics in reverse.
, however, is wrong.
Solar cells absorb light and convert to electrons and holes, whereas OLEDs are light-emitting devices. But OLED's are made from different materials, like WOV says, they are made from oganic polymers whereas the flexible substrate solar cells are usually made with amorphous silicon. Not sputtered though, as WOV says, but usually deposted by plasma enhanced vapour deposition from silane (SiH4 gas)
LOL. You forgot Tim Horton's though. There are 20 in Winnipeg.
I agree
# 1 GB RAM. Nothing special about that.
I'd say this is nice.
# 160 GB disk. So what? How many offices don't have a server to store everything on?
Why bother with a server. How big of a pain is that synching stuff with a server. Just have everything on your laptop. Work at home more easily, no need to connect to work, company can keep a tight lock on the network instead.
# DVD burner. Optional on some laptops and you can always use an external to a docking station.
Externals are expensive. The fact that this laptop comes with this at such a low price is a plus.
# Kitchen Sink. So what? Carry a small bottle of Purell in your pocket.Good idea.
I don't see how any of your points proved your first statement: "Stupid, stupid, stupid"
IE required. Now I really wish Firefox could identify itself as IE. "We've noticed that you're currently using a non-supported browser. "Please switch to Internet Explorer v. 5.0.1 or later to continue. "You can get the latest version of IE free at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.asp. "After downloading and installing Internet Explorer, please launch it and go to: http://webapps.prod.there.com/register in order to continue the registration process (you should cut and paste or write this link down for when you're ready to return)." You do not need to switch your default browser settings."
Wait until tomorrow. The slashdot effect will screw it up. Too many users logging in at once.
But it's part of sucks500. If you tried to put something up at that domain it would get taken down. Vivendi shut down vivendisucks.com