Rxmeds.com.mx Review:
rxmeds.com.mx-No Prescription Required-quality generics and brands - Licensed Pharmacy in Tijuana, Mexico-no prescriptions-wholesale meds-best prices- brand & generics.
Country: North America, US, United States
City: 92123 San Diego, California
- Melissa W - Great for the Price!I have 2 of these strollers and we've had them for about a year now and we couldn't love them more. They are so lightweight, easy to set up and take down. Plus they're been easy to clean. They also make it easy to get around on most surfaces - grass, concrete, gravel. Overall, I love this stroller for the price!
- Happily expecting - My MiracleI have always had very irregualr cycles steming from 13 yrs old to most recently 28 years old. I always had an underlying feeling that I would have a problem getting pregnant. I tried for months to get pregnant & nothing was happening. My doctor gave me a prescription for clomid, which I really didn't want to take so I began searching the web for an alternative. Lucky for me, I found FertilAid. I took it for 4 weeks & became pregnant. I am now 7 weeks along. I highly recommend this supplement.
- Donald Symons - Why the Barbell-Shaped Review Distribution?Several excellent descriptive reviews, especially that of Rob Hardy, have already appeared here, so there's no point in my repeating that information. (My general assessment of this book can be found above, in the blurb I wrote for the publisher.) Instead, I'd like to provide some additional information for open-minded readers without an ax to grind who are trying to decide whether to buy the book.
Before Ogas and Gaddam began their research for this book they conducted a survey of an online community of slash fiction fans. ("Slash fiction" is a kind of romance fiction--often very sexually graphic--that is typically written by and for women, in which both lovers are men.) Some slash fans who participated in this survey, or did not participate but came to learn of it, strongly objected to it. These fans are the source of the 1-star reviews, which claim or imply that A Billion Wicked Thoughts was based on, or derived from, this survey.
I haven't seen the survey and therefore can't comment on its merits or shortcomings, but for the purposes of this review it doesn't matter because (please pardon my caps) THE SURVEY HAD NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH A BILLION WICKED THOUGHTS. How do I know this? Because I read the book. Why don't the 1-star reviewers know this? Because they didn't read the book. All the data used in this book was obtained from publicly available sources or shared with the authors by private enterprises, and all the data is completely anonymous.
Furthermore, the slash fan community is by no means uniformly hostile to A Billion Wicked Thoughts. In fact, the Foreword was written by Catherine Salmon, who, for more than two decades, has been a member of the slash community as a reader of slash, a writer of slash, a participant in online slash discussion groups, a slash conference participant, and the co-author of a book about slash (I am the second author).
I would also like to respond to some specific claims made by 1-star reviewers:
> These two "scientists" were actually asked by the institution they claimed to represent to cease and desist from using their name in relation to this non-IRB approved "experiment." (Skittish)
> Other raised their concerns with the institution the writers claimed y to be affiliated with, and discovered that their claims of affiliation were made up. (H. West)
> The very college the two writers worked for pulled their accreditation of the research and disavowed the study. (Jess Idres)
> One of the people at Boston Uni who was there when they were suspended for their 'research' has published a short expose on Kindle. (J. Davitt)
Ogas and Gaddam have replied to these sorts of charges in a Q&A on the Freakonomics web site (please see "Comments" for web address).
For further clarification of these matters I emailed Dr. Ogas and received the following reply:
"There was no cease and desist from BU, no reprimand or sanction of any kind. This is a complete fabrication. (Where is the evidence? We still have our Boston University websites and email addresses.) Sai was a working post-doc at Boston University and I still retained student status when we represented ourselves as being at Boston University. When we were no longer affiliated with BU we stopped claiming affiliation. We never claimed BU affiliation with the survey or used BU resources. There never was any "accreditation" of the research (I don't even know what that means) so it could not have been pulled. BU never avowed any research, so how could it have been disavowed? We openly state that we intentionally conducted our research independent of any institutional support. We never requested any institutional support."
I have chaired the Human Subjects Committee (a.k.a. Institutional Review Board, or IRB) at The University of California at Santa Barbara for the last 25 years, and I have no idea what "accreditation" or "avowal" mean in this context.
I found Dr. Ogas's response to J. Davitt's Kindle charge especially interesting and, I confess, amusing.
"About the Kindle "expose" by a "colleague" from BU. We created that ourselves as a "honeypot" to ensnare the hostile slash fans. We crafted a ridiculous anonymous document that claimed all kinds of outrageous stuff about ourselves and filled it with nonsensical neuroscience mumbo jumbo that purports to explain why our science is wrong (like "there can be no AND gate in the female hypothalamus because it lacks lateral neurons"). We hoped that the protesters would start citing it as gospel and then we could reveal that we were the authors (the first letters of one of the sentences reads "ogi and sai wrote this satire"), demonstrating that these protesters are relying on anonymous, fabricated, unverified smears. Unfortunately, our publisher insisted we take it down, which we did."
I hope this information is useful to potential readers of A Billion Wicked Thoughts. - R. Anglin - Best Roku yetSo first off, this is the 3rd Roku I've owned and the only one I would give 5 stars to. I bought the original Roku (not sure what we call that one now) and it was better than nothing, but it literally stopped working about 1 week after the initial 1-year warranty expired (not an exaggeration, it just stopped doing anything 4-5 days after the 1-year anniversary and they refused to replace/fix it, according to the company's forum, very common issue). Next I had the got the Roku LT (I was pretty down on the company after the first one which is why I didn't get one of the models before the LT), I would give that one 4 stars, good but not great. I say all of that just so you know I have some experience with the product.
Pros:
-Very small footprint, both the unit and the power supply.
-Very fast and responsive, best I've tried yet.
-Does a great job streaming.
-Great remote, all of the buttons feel solid, but not too stiff when you press them. I haven't tried the gaming functions, I have a lot of other gaming devices. I have never experienced any of the issues with directionality that other reviewers have, not sure if they got a lemon or they are expecting something other than what normal remotes deliver.
-Ethernet outlet, yes I have a wi-fi system, but where this is located I can have a wired connection without the cable showing, so why not (which means I have zero experience with the wi-fi feature of this product.
-Free earbuds, plus they mute the TV when you plug them in. Personally I would never use this other than the one time I tested it out, but great idea.
-1080p support, since I don't have a 4K TV yet, that's good enough for me.
-Supports the services that I personally use: Netflix, Amazon Prime TV, Hulu Plus, Vudu (which I rarely use, but it's still there).
-Low power consumption during streaming, almost no usage during "sleep" (and yes I have plugged into my killawatt and the company's numbers are pretty accurate).
-Compatible with older remotes if you lose the included one.
-MicroSD slot for locally saved videos.
Cons:
-No true DLNA support. Not sure why they don't just put an "as-is" DLNA channel on it and let those of us savvy enough get it to work. Not a Plex fan, in fact I can't stand it (spent a long time trying to get it to work with my Roku LT and various PCs, really terrible). Of course this is true of all Roku players, which is why I didn't ding this player a star for it, since it's a design philosophy.
-The ethernet port is not 1GB. Of course that doesn't matter when you stream from the internet, but if they ever got around to giving us true DLNA support, you could get great local streaming.
Notes:
-The only TV output is via HDMI, which is not a con to me, but might be to others.
-I don't use the music or picture functionality, so I have no experience with those features.