I keep seeing things like the above ("I personally only want to see peer reviewed data, nothing else matters.") that lead me to think that people really misunderstand the whole peer review process and what it means.
When you submit a paper for publication, the journal's editor typically sends the paper out to a relatively small group of other scientists for the purpose of answering the question "Should I publish this paper in the journal". The scientists are typically from the field, and usually have published in the journal previously -- i.e., they have a pretty good sense about the kind of papers that "fit" in the journal. The reviewers usually send back the article with lots of comments about how well the article is (or isn't) written, including grammar errors, other articles which the author should consider, critiques of the methodology or analysis, etc. They might even suggest that another journal would be a better place for the article to be published -- and explain why.
One thing that those anonymous reviewers DON'T EVER DO, however, is re-run the experiment/analysis with the goal of confirming or validating the conclusions of the paper. That is done *after* the paper is published, when another scientist reads the paper and says to himself either "Hey, I can use that!!" or "Hey, that's ridiculous!!" and attempts to confirm the results. If he can't, he gets to write his own paper (which is *also* usually peer-reviewed) that explains what is wrong with the original article.
So "peer reviewed" doesn't mean "true" or "confirmed" -- it really just means that the editor of a journal that requires peer review thought that the article was worth publishing. A "peer reviewed" article might be nothing more than easily disproved propaganda if an editor decides to take an advocacy position, has an axe to grind, or is an idiot...
Rather than dropping the waste in an inactive area, we should place it as near as possible to one of the subduction zones (where one techtonic plate is forced under another).
Assuming a subduction rate of 80 mm/yr (an average rate, according to an USGS website), waste canisters that were placed within 1/2 mile of the subduction boundary would begin move under the mantle within 10,000 years.
The best thing about this approach is that it doesn't require any further action by humans -- if the Battlefield Earth scenario ever plays out, the waste would be out of reach below the crust before Jonny learns Psychlo.
USGS website I used was: http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/plate_tectonics/ri ft_man.html
Although the appeals court reversed the remedy, and some of the conclusions of law, they upheld the findings of fact (what happened) and some of the findings of law (i.e., Microsoft IS a monopoly, and did use predatory tactics).
What this means is that the essential facts of the case will be taken as a given by the new trial judge, who will presumably hold hearings on the remaining (remanded) findings of law and on the remedy. Hopefully, this judge will also decide to keep his mouth shut until after the case is completely and totally finished...
Since the ad was cited by Microsoft's expert witness economics (Schmalensee ) as evidence that many economists believe that Microsoft is a cute little Beanie Baby of a company, it could certainly hurt his credibility.
If the judge still believes he has credibility, that is -- the Microsoft witnesses shot themselves in the foot more often than a 3-footed centipede...
Slashdot Mirror
I keep seeing things like the above ("I personally only want to see peer reviewed data, nothing else matters.") that lead me to think that people really misunderstand the whole peer review process and what it means.
When you submit a paper for publication, the journal's editor typically sends the paper out to a relatively small group of other scientists for the purpose of answering the question "Should I publish this paper in the journal". The scientists are typically from the field, and usually have published in the journal previously -- i.e., they have a pretty good sense about the kind of papers that "fit" in the journal. The reviewers usually send back the article with lots of comments about how well the article is (or isn't) written, including grammar errors, other articles which the author should consider, critiques of the methodology or analysis, etc. They might even suggest that another journal would be a better place for the article to be published -- and explain why.
One thing that those anonymous reviewers DON'T EVER DO, however, is re-run the experiment/analysis with the goal of confirming or validating the conclusions of the paper. That is done *after* the paper is published, when another scientist reads the paper and says to himself either "Hey, I can use that!!" or "Hey, that's ridiculous!!" and attempts to confirm the results. If he can't, he gets to write his own paper (which is *also* usually peer-reviewed) that explains what is wrong with the original article.
So "peer reviewed" doesn't mean "true" or "confirmed" -- it really just means that the editor of a journal that requires peer review thought that the article was worth publishing. A "peer reviewed" article might be nothing more than easily disproved propaganda if an editor decides to take an advocacy position, has an axe to grind, or is an idiot...
Rather than dropping the waste in an inactive area, we should place it as near as possible to one of the subduction zones (where one techtonic plate is forced under another).
i ft_man.html
Assuming a subduction rate of 80 mm/yr (an average rate, according to an USGS website), waste canisters that were placed within 1/2 mile of the subduction boundary would begin move under the mantle within 10,000 years.
The best thing about this approach is that it doesn't require any further action by humans -- if the Battlefield Earth scenario ever plays out, the waste would be out of reach below the crust before Jonny learns Psychlo.
USGS website I used was: http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/plate_tectonics/r
Although the appeals court reversed the remedy, and some of the conclusions of law, they upheld the findings of fact (what happened) and some of the findings of law (i.e., Microsoft IS a monopoly, and did use predatory tactics).
What this means is that the essential facts of the case will be taken as a given by the new trial judge, who will presumably hold hearings on the remaining (remanded) findings of law and on the remedy. Hopefully, this judge will also decide to keep his mouth shut until after the case is completely and totally finished...
Since the ad was cited by Microsoft's expert witness economics (Schmalensee ) as evidence that many economists believe that Microsoft is a cute little Beanie Baby of a company, it could certainly hurt his credibility.
If the judge still believes he has credibility, that is -- the Microsoft witnesses shot themselves in the foot more often than a 3-footed centipede...