Ordering online has some problems, mostly shipping delay and price.
I've found sites like newegg.com to be good because of FAST shipping and low price. In some cases on newegg, shipping is free.
I think the best way to stay in online business is to popularize the name, use lower-than-average prices (especially to combat shipping cost) and to be exceptionally reliable.
It also seems like computer hardware works well on some levels because it's generally harder to get good hardware. I usually don't see "good" motherboards at stores or AMD Athlons (except for some cases, like Best Buy), and in those few cases where I do it is usually overpriced.
If you think you can run a small online business with prices equal to what normal, drive-to stores sell you're kidding yourself, especially when you factor in shipping costs. Unless, of course, what you sell is ultra-speciality stuff you normally can't find.
That is never an excuse for a stupid law. I might as well tell some "godless commie" to "move to cuba" because he doesn't like the fact that Ashcroft is an asshole.
Oh, I'm not comparing the queen to saddam. It's just that I don't think the queen should be important enough to be able to give such honors.
Yes, I think he certainly deserves the honor, no doubt about it. But the queen just shouldn't have the prestige of being able to hand it out, so to speak.
If I were a member of the British royal family, I would not accept any "Prince" or whatever position. It's ridiculous, and it's a waste of time or money.
Yes, no one is questioning how good is accomplishments are.
Let's put it this way... if I declared him "High Angel of Intellectual Perfection" or some other title (hey I'm being creative) do you think he would care about such an honor from me-- a nobody? Do you think he would take that honor from the chinese, or perhaps Sadam Hussein?
The Queen should not have any authority. She doesn't deserve it.
You contradict yourself. Why would you look for another doctor, when he is an expert with experience?
Is it because you are judging on your own limited knowledge...?
Re:Voting with your dollars works both ways.
on
Wikipedia Needs $20K
·
· Score: 1
Of course they aren't serious, but covering such topics and WHY THEY DO NOT WORK is very important, especially to people who could potentially get conned out of $$$.
Yes, I agree that credentials are important in some cases to determine how a source knows what it does, so you can find out why they may be wrong or right. And that people can get wrong information off wikipedia-- I've corrected articles myself, AND have dealt with someone rather dogmatic on his idiotic opinion on James Randi.
You seem to assume that any ignorant person will write randomly in wikipedia, or in things they are ignorant about. If they do, it doesn't last long, and that behavior has been seen only rarely.
But experts are prone to error themselves; obviously, if someone tells you your doctor or lawyer isn't doing their job right you're going to want more information, even if the other person DOESN'T have a medical degree.
Experts can only be trusted to a degree.
Wikipedians themselves have found errors in Brittanica, ones that are not in wikipedia itself:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_fun_of_Bri ta nnica
What happened to the "experts" there?
Your argument is akin to saying that with open source someone can program in a backdoor: it can be fixed and spotted by others who actually examine the source, but it puts some people at risk.
Also, you insist that an encyclopedia is compiled by experts on all of the subjects, yet the dictionary itself does not say that. Why do you reject the dictionary, something written by "experts"?
In fact, what is your basis to the claim that encyclopedias are written entirely by experts on their fields? How do you know it simply isn't encyclopedia editors looking up in other sources and doing fact-checking, possibly on topics that are hard to fact-check?
I know exactly what your point is, and I want to know why I can't write about "hot reading", "James Randi", etc, even though my information is valid and has been double-checked, AND is reviewed by others?
Your complaints are not new, they are old and well-known. Your claims might be more valid if there was evidence that vastly ignorant people are writing left and right about topics they know only little about (if that is indeed what you are thinking).
Yes, if my doctor says something, I will more likely follow his advice than some hobo. But when other people contradict him, and no one "corrects" those other people, I would investigate my doctor's claims a little more.
Trust, when we try to determine why, and the reasons for an authority to say something, is useful only slightly.
Many quacks are "experts" on their fields. In fact, some of them can get government recognition in certain places because of the government's idiocy.
I use multiple sources and factor in not who considers them an expert and why, but HOW they know what they know and WHY the present it that way.
Any article, encyclopedia Brittanica or not, is likely to have some political bias in there.
Obviously, when it comes to brain surgery you'll trust a neurosurgeon over your pal Tom simply because you know the neurosurgeon HAS studied brains and biology. But if your pal Tom studies the brain himself, then he might have something, which is why you check even more sources.
Wikipedia is just one source, but from many people. I've found topics discussed (useful topics to me) on it relating to philosophy which more more useful (and just as accurate) than other sources on the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Haha, you get marked for trolling just because it's windows.
Darl: That gosh-darn penguin STOLE the evidence out of our source code! That's why we don't have it, that damn hippie-communist pinko penguin does!
Techie: That's not how it works, s--
Darl: Don't question me! You have a law degree, right?
Techie: Uh, yes, I do... u--
Darl: Then from now on you're our goddamn lawyer, and MAKE SOME EVIDENCE.
I believe Lucas was originally planning 7,8,9, but he's too old and so there weren't going to be any. Or am I wrong?
Actually, it's black, the water vapor in the air just makes it appear blue (by scattering blue light from the sun).
Microsoft: Yes.
Israel: No.
Microsoft: Yes.
Israel: No.
Microsoft: *funds suicide bombers*
Israel: Oh shi
Ordering online has some problems, mostly shipping delay and price.
I've found sites like newegg.com to be good because of FAST shipping and low price. In some cases on newegg, shipping is free.
I think the best way to stay in online business is to popularize the name, use lower-than-average prices (especially to combat shipping cost) and to be exceptionally reliable.
It also seems like computer hardware works well on some levels because it's generally harder to get good hardware. I usually don't see "good" motherboards at stores or AMD Athlons (except for some cases, like Best Buy), and in those few cases where I do it is usually overpriced.
If you think you can run a small online business with prices equal to what normal, drive-to stores sell you're kidding yourself, especially when you factor in shipping costs. Unless, of course, what you sell is ultra-speciality stuff you normally can't find.
Cobol is hardcore, man. HARDCORE.
If you don't like it, move to another state ;).
That is never an excuse for a stupid law. I might as well tell some "godless commie" to "move to cuba" because he doesn't like the fact that Ashcroft is an asshole.
Don't you understand? NUDITY IS TEH WORD OF DARK LORD SATAN, SPAWN OF... OF.. NUDISM!!!!1
It's kind of sad, dogs get more rights than people in some areas (they can walk naked, pee on fire hydrants... I'd be arrested for that)
Commie? Didn't mindless McCarthyism die out long ago?
No! Nudity! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, NOT NUDITY!
Auuugh, my precious eyes are going to be corrupted! I can feel my mind melting under the hidious hideiousnedd of NUDITY!
Why, you know the dangers of nudity in public? Well, there's a lot of them, I'll tell ya!
* World might implode
* Meteor might impact earth
* Solar flare could fry us
In addition, it might contribute to GLOBAL WARMING!
FIGHT NUDITY TODAY!
Oh, I'm not comparing the queen to saddam. It's just that I don't think the queen should be important enough to be able to give such honors.
Yes, I think he certainly deserves the honor, no doubt about it. But the queen just shouldn't have the prestige of being able to hand it out, so to speak.
Brilliant!
If I were a member of the British royal family, I would not accept any "Prince" or whatever position. It's ridiculous, and it's a waste of time or money.
Yes, no one is questioning how good is accomplishments are.
Let's put it this way... if I declared him "High Angel of Intellectual Perfection" or some other title (hey I'm being creative) do you think he would care about such an honor from me-- a nobody? Do you think he would take that honor from the chinese, or perhaps Sadam Hussein?
The Queen should not have any authority. She doesn't deserve it.
That's also similar to open source.
I really hoped this isn't marked troll or flamebait, but insightful or interesting.
Politically, I can't see why Britian still has a royal family. Seems like a bunch of mooches to me.
What does that old wrinklebag do that is so special, that gives her so many fans? I think I know.
She's... "Queen". And therefore, people respect her.
..now he can slay orcs and save princesses like the best of us.
I find CAN-SPAM to be far to lenient. I propose flogging and, possibly, death if they continue to insult my penis size.
Oh, and before you say "cruel and unusual punishment": THE PUNISHMENT DOES FIT THE CRIME, DAMMIT
"Australians report rise of homosexual fish"
You contradict yourself. Why would you look for another doctor, when he is an expert with experience?
Is it because you are judging on your own limited knowledge...?
Of course they aren't serious, but covering such topics and WHY THEY DO NOT WORK is very important, especially to people who could potentially get conned out of $$$.
It doesn't even take a paragraph to say "written by experts in the fields they study". You just like your own personal definition better.
Yes, I agree that credentials are important in some cases to determine how a source knows what it does, so you can find out why they may be wrong or right. And that people can get wrong information off wikipedia-- I've corrected articles myself, AND have dealt with someone rather dogmatic on his idiotic opinion on James Randi.
i ta nnica
You seem to assume that any ignorant person will write randomly in wikipedia, or in things they are ignorant about. If they do, it doesn't last long, and that behavior has been seen only rarely.
But experts are prone to error themselves; obviously, if someone tells you your doctor or lawyer isn't doing their job right you're going to want more information, even if the other person DOESN'T have a medical degree.
Experts can only be trusted to a degree.
Wikipedians themselves have found errors in Brittanica, ones that are not in wikipedia itself:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_fun_of_Br
What happened to the "experts" there?
Your argument is akin to saying that with open source someone can program in a backdoor: it can be fixed and spotted by others who actually examine the source, but it puts some people at risk.
Also, you insist that an encyclopedia is compiled by experts on all of the subjects, yet the dictionary itself does not say that. Why do you reject the dictionary, something written by "experts"?
In fact, what is your basis to the claim that encyclopedias are written entirely by experts on their fields? How do you know it simply isn't encyclopedia editors looking up in other sources and doing fact-checking, possibly on topics that are hard to fact-check?
I know exactly what your point is, and I want to know why I can't write about "hot reading", "James Randi", etc, even though my information is valid and has been double-checked, AND is reviewed by others?
Your complaints are not new, they are old and well-known. Your claims might be more valid if there was evidence that vastly ignorant people are writing left and right about topics they know only little about (if that is indeed what you are thinking).
Yes, if my doctor says something, I will more likely follow his advice than some hobo. But when other people contradict him, and no one "corrects" those other people, I would investigate my doctor's claims a little more.
Trust, when we try to determine why, and the reasons for an authority to say something, is useful only slightly.
Many quacks are "experts" on their fields. In fact, some of them can get government recognition in certain places because of the government's idiocy.
I use multiple sources and factor in not who considers them an expert and why, but HOW they know what they know and WHY the present it that way.
Any article, encyclopedia Brittanica or not, is likely to have some political bias in there.
Obviously, when it comes to brain surgery you'll trust a neurosurgeon over your pal Tom simply because you know the neurosurgeon HAS studied brains and biology. But if your pal Tom studies the brain himself, then he might have something, which is why you check even more sources.
Wikipedia is just one source, but from many people. I've found topics discussed (useful topics to me) on it relating to philosophy which more more useful (and just as accurate) than other sources on the internet.