There's no reson in the world to take the word of a non-profetional paper reporter on anything. Only the profetional magazines reporters Bother to try ro anderstand what they write about. They even bother to make sure they're reporting the result of real serches and to make sure to report speculations as speculation.
Populistic jurnalism and reactions about scientific matters is exactly what's ruins the science comunity. Today meny scientists will go after reserch on a well accepted and known direction rather than a non-popular one simply because ther's a lot more mony there. For example, cold fusion or AIDS, those who's belifes are the opposite of what non-profetional papers prefer to belive (Such as pretty good evedence that HIV doesn't have to be the couse of the condition named AIDS, and so on) have difficulties with raising inough money to seriuslly reserch those matters. In the AIDS case, for example, it really frights me.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no reson in the world to take the word of a non-profetional paper reporter on anything. Only the profetional magazines reporters Bother to try ro anderstand what they write about. They even bother to make sure they're reporting the result of real serches and to make sure to report speculations as speculation.
Populistic jurnalism and reactions about scientific matters is exactly what's ruins the science comunity. Today meny scientists will go after reserch on a well accepted and known direction rather than a non-popular one simply because ther's a lot more mony there. For example, cold fusion or AIDS, those who's belifes are the opposite of what non-profetional papers prefer to belive (Such as pretty good evedence that HIV doesn't have to be the couse of the condition named AIDS, and so on) have difficulties with raising inough money to seriuslly reserch those matters. In the AIDS case, for example, it really frights me.
(I appologise for any misspeling)