When I read a paper in a good journal, I trust that it has been peer reviewed and any over-interpretation were addressed prior to publication. I know because that's how my papers were published. It doesn't always happen of course, scientists are usually too eager to create a story, but regardless, I trust the raw data collected in a study. Pretty much the only way to dispute data is to accuse them of forgery. In climate science, where everyone is looking over everyone's shoulder, it'd be pretty stupid to forge data...
So, I'm afraid I disagree, that's not how science works. More to the point, what scientists consider "Science" and what is propagated to the public as "Science" are different, thus being skeptical are different concepts for both parties. I am skeptical of the "Discussion" section of a paper, and the general public should be skeptical of everything they are presented as Science.
This was not an ab initio, calculation. It's all atom MD, which itself is an approximation. People have done ab initio calculations on 10-15 residue peptides, but that's about all you can do with current computational power.
I believe the article is published in Science not because of its computer utilization (i.e. using a bad-ass super computer), but because of its biological relevance. They managed to characterize not only the peptides conformations, but also their mutant's behavior in silico.
Ah, youngling, you have many years until you have that PhD in your hand. What you're suggesting is a negative results, caused from "not seeing what we wanted to see", which can be rebutted in a million different ways, most of which you probably do not know yet.
This is one of the reasons the peer review process exists. I personally do not believe anything I read on a non-peer reviewed paper, unless of course it is coming from well documented, well funded full professors.
No one benefits from learning a confusing (and some parts plainly nonsense) representation of an academically accepted knowledge. To say the least, an 8th grader could have written this. The original paper is not peer reviewed, submitted by an author who works at Microsoft India (as he claims since there's no way to check), with a proud hotmail email address, and 8 references... Why is this posted on/. again? Oh yes, nice colors!
Actually it's not. In 1850s (exact year evades me) a volcanic eruption caused a prolonged winter that caused Europe and North America to see snow in summer. No crops grew that year, there was famine... But again, this is temporary. What we are putting into the atmosphere causes long term damage.
t'd be like budding an extra little computer off inside your existing computer.
Actually, this is a logical step in computer evolution. Kind of like Mitochondria in our cells.
Evolutionary consequences of gaming maybe slightly controversial however.
They will have a smaller pool to monitor. Who else would pay $100/month other than the P2P users?
Cablevision is also the perfect company for RIAA because they already demonstrated that they are scared shitless of getting into trouble. They have an office actually sending warning letters to users who download copyrighted material via P2P.
Slashdot Mirror
When I read a paper in a good journal, I trust that it has been peer reviewed and any over-interpretation were addressed prior to publication. I know because that's how my papers were published. It doesn't always happen of course, scientists are usually too eager to create a story, but regardless, I trust the raw data collected in a study. Pretty much the only way to dispute data is to accuse them of forgery. In climate science, where everyone is looking over everyone's shoulder, it'd be pretty stupid to forge data...
So, I'm afraid I disagree, that's not how science works. More to the point, what scientists consider "Science" and what is propagated to the public as "Science" are different, thus being skeptical are different concepts for both parties. I am skeptical of the "Discussion" section of a paper, and the general public should be skeptical of everything they are presented as Science.
You should be skeptical of science articles on mainstream media
FTFY
This was not an ab initio, calculation. It's all atom MD, which itself is an approximation. People have done ab initio calculations on 10-15 residue peptides, but that's about all you can do with current computational power.
I believe the article is published in Science not because of its computer utilization (i.e. using a bad-ass super computer), but because of its biological relevance. They managed to characterize not only the peptides conformations, but also their mutant's behavior in silico.
A referees rejection can be overruled by the editor. It's his job to choose referees that will understand the research and make sure they are just.
Ah, youngling, you have many years until you have that PhD in your hand. What you're suggesting is a negative results, caused from "not seeing what we wanted to see", which can be rebutted in a million different ways, most of which you probably do not know yet. This is one of the reasons the peer review process exists. I personally do not believe anything I read on a non-peer reviewed paper, unless of course it is coming from well documented, well funded full professors.
I wish that was true. # of command buttons are steadily increasing in all sciences. I genuinely fear for the future of science...
No one benefits from learning a confusing (and some parts plainly nonsense) representation of an academically accepted knowledge. To say the least, an 8th grader could have written this. The original paper is not peer reviewed, submitted by an author who works at Microsoft India (as he claims since there's no way to check), with a proud hotmail email address, and 8 references... Why is this posted on /. again? Oh yes, nice colors!
Actually it's not. In 1850s (exact year evades me) a volcanic eruption caused a prolonged winter that caused Europe and North America to see snow in summer. No crops grew that year, there was famine... But again, this is temporary. What we are putting into the atmosphere causes long term damage.
t'd be like budding an extra little computer off inside your existing computer.
Actually, this is a logical step in computer evolution. Kind of like Mitochondria in our cells. Evolutionary consequences of gaming maybe slightly controversial however.
They will have a smaller pool to monitor. Who else would pay $100/month other than the P2P users? Cablevision is also the perfect company for RIAA because they already demonstrated that they are scared shitless of getting into trouble. They have an office actually sending warning letters to users who download copyrighted material via P2P.