Jim Hubbard's Comments

They can only go 800 feet because they are jumping off of the side of a hill.

Call me when they launch and go for distance over a flat level surface.

Better yet....call me when they launch and go for distance over a flat level surface, while on fire and jumping over school buses.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Fraud is fraud - as a teaching assistant she knew better. If she didn't she's too stupid to be teaching anyone anything.

And that whole "muddier" comment is just race baiting. And, it just got Neatorama removed from my favorites.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Why are we trying to reinvent the roundabout?

"Roundabouts are safer than both traffic circles and traditional junctions—having 40% fewer vehicle collisions, 80% fewer injuries and 90% fewer serious injuries and fatalities (according to a study[16] of a sampling of roundabouts in the United States, when compared with the junctions they replaced)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
IF this is truly the most efficient, then why didn't birds evolve with bumps on the front of their wings?

Surely the bumps would help them fly farther with less energy and help predator birds fly faster to catch their food supply. So, what happened there?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Most upper class people do not care what other people feel or think. That's how they got to be upper class - by ignoring the feelings of other people and lining their pockets at the expense of others.

People that care about other people generally do not make money/class/business decisions that help make them upper class people.

I'm not judging upper class people (or lower class people) I'm simply stating the obvious - you make more money by placing yourself ahead of others in your business decisions.

What this study did not do is measure perceived happiness of the upper-class VS lower-class people.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
There is a 2008 article on Mr. Parker that is a little more enlightening than this one. You an see it at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/business/media/14link.html?_r=2.

In part, it reads "While nothing announces that Mr. Parker’s books are computer generated, one reader, David Pascoe, seemed close to figuring it out himself, based on his comments to Amazon in 2004. Reviewing a guide to rosacea, a skin disorder, Mr. Pascoe, who is from Perth, Australia, complained: “The book is more of a template for ‘generic health researching’ than anything specific to rosacea. The information is of such a generic level that a sourcebook on the next medical topic is just a search and replace away.”

When told via e-mail that his suspicion was correct, Mr. Pascoe wrote back, “I guess it makes sense now as to why the book was so awful and frustrating.”Mr. Parker was willing to concede much of what Mr. Pascoe argued. “If you are good at the Internet, this book is useless,” he said, adding that Mr. Pascoe simply should not have bought it. But, Mr. Parker said, there are people who aren’t Internet savvy who have found these guides useful."

Hmmmmmmm..... Author indeed.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Some of his better reviews are simply shills. Take "The 2007-2012 Outlook for Tufted Washable Scatter Rugs, Bathmats, and Sets That Measure 6-Feet by 9-Feet or Smaller in Greater China" for instance. It has one reviewer for 5 stars that admits to not even having bought the book - "This particular book was described so wonderfully that I can't wait to save up the money to buy a copy. I already must consider this book to be the final authority on the subject. For that price, this must be a very limited printing, and without a doubt a fine investment for the dizzerning library affecianado. I would hope that for the listed price, I might be favored with a signed edition."

Signed edition of "The 2007-2012 Outlook for Tufted Washable Scatter Rugs, Bathmats, and Sets That Measure 6-Feet by 9-Feet or Smaller in Greater China"?

It looks like he may be faking the reviews as well as the "books".

(See - http://www.amazon.com/2007-2012-Outlook-Washable-Scatter-Bathmats/dp/0497399288/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1286355660&sr=1-9 for the shill review.)
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
His overall rating on Amazon is only 2 out of 5 possible stars.

While he may be prolific writer...that doesn't mean he is a good one.

Then again, you don't have to be good at something to sucker people into paying you to do it.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I am not convinced that the apparatus can write a well-formed book that readers would find entertaining as well as educational. To do so would require some sort of artificial intelligence algorithm and an understanding of the subject matter that allows the content to naturally flow from beginning to end in a logical manner.

Computer logic and the logic surrounding other subjects are two entirely different beasts.

Perhaps the best indication of how well the books are written is the fact that (according to the author) he has "written" over 200,000 books and we (at least I) have never heard of him.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.

Profile for Jim Hubbard

  • Member Since 2012/08/07



  • Threads Started 15
  • Replies Posted 0
  • Likes Received 1
  • Abuse Flags 0

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
Learn More