narfblat Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Maybe if they use penicillin then this will be the first computer memory with built in anti-virus. No, penicillin kills bacteria, and has little or no effect on viruses. The penicillin would probably just totally destroy your memory. Sort of like what windows does, but permanent. On a related note, if they develop these chips, will terrorists use antibiotics as weapons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Use Lysol with caution around computers. That's what it's going to be saying on the cans soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acrylic Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 This is cool and all. But I think he should have cut his nail(s) before taking the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 This is cool and all. But I think he should have cut his nail(s) before taking the picture. He needs a makeover! [/feministic sounding voice] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 feministic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 It's a trap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Uhh, something I missed? What's wrong with wikipedia? Anyone with an internet connection can edit it, anonymously, at any time. That means it'll never be complete, and never need be fact checked unless somebody wants to. You might say it's ruled by "community of volunteers" but that includes you, me, and the crazy kid from the other side of the world. So you always have to be cautious with info you get from wiki. Never take it purely at face value, especially if it's not backed up anywhere else! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 never need be fact checked Incorrect, they do have staff that checks. Mind you it may take a bit of time (about a day), it is fact checked and corrected (or atleast incorrect bits removed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I disagree with you guys, because i've seen the discussion pages, i've seen how strict they are. I've also seen them site their resources and provide external links to reliable web sites that provide the same information. I've also seen the headers that say "the factual accuracy of this page is disputed" and i've seen people fix things that were incorrect all the time. I've also seen the convenience of wikipedia and I get alot of information from that site and I've learned alot of things from just looking through pages. And I also didn't deserve that type of responce from just the pure mention of it. But this thread isn't about wikipedia, so lets get back on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiE23 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Heh, I have nothing against Wikipedia, I use it a lot myself. It's just when I made Wikipedia Card to explain Insane Sith's seemingly unbound intelligence had something to do with Wikipedia (And maybe google) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Encyclopedia Britannica, animal planet, and random google searches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Incorrect, they do have staff that checks. Mind you it may take a bit of time (about a day), it is fact checked and corrected (or atleast incorrect bits removed). Hmm, that doesn't sound right. I know they have a "site staff" but I got the impression that they took a fairly "laisse fare" attitude towards content articles, except in the case of outright attacks and mass vandalism (unless that has recently changed). Even if they are there, lots of pages go for long periods without corrections. After all, the staff can't be expected to spend all their time on there, or be knowledgable about everything. So if nobody reports a problem to them, I expect they miss a lot of things, even if they are zealous mofos. Like for example the JK1 release date. That went uncorrected for at least six months, if not more. All it took to correct was a google search (just to PROVE I was right, since I remember when the game came out). And we're not just talking incorrect information, but also INCOMPLETE information or biased articles. Somebody can put a notice on a page sure, but until then the article can lead to wrong conclusions about things, especially when lacking sources. Dead linkes are another problem (even when people put them in the web archive "way back machine") or links that go nowhere (stubs). Those aren't exactly "sources" for somebody who's looking for that info. Bottom line, when you're going to argue Star Wars canon stuff, you'd better have another source besides Wiki to back it up. As a person in the field of theology I often come across slight problems in those areas too. A lot of the articles are good, but have little quirks that go unnoticed. I guess because not many people on the internet are well educated in that field (I mean actual theology, not just Sunday school/Bible trivia type stuff). Wikipedia isn't THE DEVIL and it's not USELESS, but it shouldn't be the end-all be-all and certainly not the primary "authority" in any given debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.