Maybe, but remember nature has over 10,000 peer reviewers the volunteer. So is may be the peer reviewers that eat crow. You can not have a peer review peer review.
It isn't perfect, no one says its perfect, and people are involved, so tere will be mistakes. The fact that people make mistakes(intentional (fraud) or unintentional(bias)) is the foundation for the scientific method.
You're argument comes down to a spelling error? one that probably would have been there even if the data was good? They appear in papers routinely. It's not a red flag by any stretch.
Publication seldom have actual experts in the specific area of the field reviewing papers. One of the reason why I stated that publication is the start of peer review. For example. they may have a geologist read a paper on magnetic pulses prior to an earth quake, but he may not be an expert in the specific area of geology. If we could have a perfect pre-publication peer review, that would be great, but we can't.
" I’d like to see Nature,..." I would to, OTOH most people have no clue how to evaluate situation in context so any thing perceived as an error by the general populace will end up being a nightmare.
10,000 is a good number becasue it will raise awareness; which is what causes the real decline. People, many posting on slashdot, are really clueless about the impact a laser can have on a flight deck, and on pilots. So you need to get there attention some how.
Completely blind the flight crew during lift off or landing isn't a 'big deal'? heicopterpilots that have there eyes damaged is no big deal?
Please, please try to understand why polarized glass would not solve this problem.
"cockpit window for more than a tenth of a second. " which is all you need to lose focus and be distracted as is, can see the instruments. sure, it's may only be for 4 or 5 seconds, but by then you have hit the ground.
Do you know understand publication and peer review? Nature peer review means that the data and methodology looked good and rigorous. If they laid about the data, or some methodology it's very hard to know that unless if is really obvious. This is why publication is only the beginning of peer review. After publication other experts can look at it and try to reproduce the results. This is also why the most interesting papers are the second papers.
Yes, make the life hard for people doing perfectly legal things. You have never, ever worked for a company that never ever did anything no other person would consider amoral.
Why should the family members be punished for the criminals activities? If you father breaks the law, should you be punished?
I said generally for a reason. If you have a car but live with your parents, and unbeknownst to you your father commits a crime, law enforces can take you car. Or you computer? or, well anything. Obviously if you father steals a car and gives it to you, it should be confiscated. Obviously if there is a brick of cash in you closet you father gave to you it should be confiscated.
No, i most cases they can't. They hose will be at too steep of an angle at the connection properly and the 'kink' will restrict flow and possible damage the hose.
Some in the UK are also above ground. Also, A person commits an offence if they obstructs a fire hydrant, and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 (Fire and Rescue Services Act Section 42). That includes in ground hydrants.
The vast majority of hydrants will not spout water if ran into and knocked over. The valve is locate about 10 feet below the ground, and the bolts are designed to sheer.
Some people have older hydrants that are under pressure, and some municipalities don't maintain the services correctly* and the valve is opened.
*becasue you can cut maintenance and citizen won't know it right away
Probably not, actual. It would mean reviews data and watching trend; which costs money. Note: They could have ignored this guy jut as easily. A citizen found and issue, the the agency took care of it promptly. Just like it should work, and does in most cases
Slashdot Mirror
Let me fix that for you:
"TONS of stuff published turns out to be wrong or overhyped."
Thus the scientific method
Maybe, but remember nature has over 10,000 peer reviewers the volunteer. So is may be the peer reviewers that eat crow.
You can not have a peer review peer review.
http://www.nature.com/authors/...
"journals themselves are always chest-thumping about how everything they publish is infallible because it was peer-reviewed, "
name one.
natures policy:
http://www.nature.com/authors/...
It isn't perfect, no one says its perfect, and people are involved, so tere will be mistakes. The fact that people make mistakes(intentional (fraud) or unintentional(bias)) is the foundation for the scientific method.
You're argument comes down to a spelling error? one that probably would have been there even if the data was good? They appear in papers routinely. It's not a red flag by any stretch.
Publication seldom have actual experts in the specific area of the field reviewing papers. One of the reason why I stated that publication is the start of peer review.
For example. they may have a geologist read a paper on magnetic pulses prior to an earth quake, but he may not be an expert in the specific area of geology. If we could have a perfect pre-publication peer review, that would be great, but we can't.
" I’d like to see Nature, ..."
I would to, OTOH most people have no clue how to evaluate situation in context so any thing perceived as an error by the general populace will end up being a nightmare.
You didn't hear it ,therefore it didn't happen?
I guess no trees make noise when you aren't around.
it happens all the time.
here is a pilot that ahd eye damage?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/he...
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local...
Permanently blinded? I don't know. Temp blinded, often.
There are hundreds of cases.
Learn to fucking use Google.
You need to read a better source. 40,000 laws is pure grade balognium
And blinding a flight crew is not frivolous.
10,000 is a good number becasue it will raise awareness; which is what causes the real decline. People, many posting on slashdot, are really clueless about the impact a laser can have on a flight deck, and on pilots. So you need to get there attention some how.
and here.
http://www.pangolin.com/faa/la...
You should look into this great tool called 'Google'
Completely blind the flight crew during lift off or landing isn't a 'big deal'? heicopterpilots that have there eyes damaged is no big deal?
Please, please try to understand why polarized glass would not solve this problem.
"cockpit window for more than a tenth of a second. "
which is all you need to lose focus and be distracted as is, can see the instruments. sure, it's may only be for 4 or 5 seconds, but by then you have hit the ground.
That wasn't a while lie by a long shot.
And this could have jut been a mistake in the methodology, no lie needed. OR simple a mistake.
Do you know understand publication and peer review?
Nature peer review means that the data and methodology looked good and rigorous.
If they laid about the data, or some methodology it's very hard to know that unless if is really obvious.
This is why publication is only the beginning of peer review. After publication other experts can look at it and try to reproduce the results. This is also why the most interesting papers are the second papers.
It also only looks at the data and methodology. if the data is wrong, they have no way of knowing that unless they actually do the experiment.
Yes, make the life hard for people doing perfectly legal things.
You have never, ever worked for a company that never ever did anything no other person would consider amoral.
That takes time and money to constantly run analysis for that. Which is another reason why it should be open.
"They are designed to screw over the accused - innocent or guilty."
no they aren't and that's foolish.
The rest of the issue can be solved with cameras and transparency.
Go back when the court case is done. That should be speedy. Until trial then giving back evidence would be fool hardy as they will/.may need it.
sucks, but what else can you do?
Why should the family members be punished for the criminals activities?
If you father breaks the law, should you be punished?
I said generally for a reason. If you have a car but live with your parents, and unbeknownst to you your father commits a crime, law enforces can take you car. Or you computer? or, well anything.
Obviously if you father steals a car and gives it to you, it should be confiscated. Obviously if there is a brick of cash in you closet you father gave to you it should be confiscated.
Yes, but they won't park a truck in your driveway.
SO you driveway doesn't obstruct coming from the ruck and connect now, will it?
No, i most cases they can't. They hose will be at too steep of an angle at the connection properly and the 'kink' will restrict flow and possible damage the hose.
IN the UK, the hydrants have a yellow sign above the that indicates the Hydrant is the as well as the pipe size.
I don't know why you think hydrants in the US don't get buried by snow.
Except their are good reason for above ground systems.
Some in the UK are also above ground.
Also, A person commits an offence if they obstructs a fire hydrant, and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 (Fire and Rescue Services Act Section 42). That includes in ground hydrants.
The vast majority of hydrants will not spout water if ran into and knocked over.
The valve is locate about 10 feet below the ground, and the bolts are designed to sheer.
Some people have older hydrants that are under pressure, and some municipalities don't maintain the services correctly* and the valve is opened.
*becasue you can cut maintenance and citizen won't know it right away
There is an indicator, the fire hydrant.
If you get a parking ticket, and you are next to a hydrant, I doubt any judge would let you off.
Probably not, actual. It would mean reviews data and watching trend; which costs money.
Note: They could have ignored this guy jut as easily. A citizen found and issue, the the agency took care of it promptly. Just like it should work, and does in most cases