On 21/11/04, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: >Saturday, November 20, 2004, 11:59:09 PM, Peter wrote: > >> It may not be peer reviewed but the authors don't get their ideas out of >> thin air, the best actually read >> scientific journals. But that's not the point. The BBC and most other >> news organizations are well behind >> the curve in science and technology. They report science "News" that is >> usually about 10 years out of date. > >It's not up to me to defend the BBC, but here's their science & nature >news web-site: >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/default.stm > >Perhaps you could point out some of their out-of-date stories. > >The story about running was also published in several UK newspapers on >or about the same day as it appeared on the BBC. The source of these >stories is usually a press release from the scientific journal in >which they appear. In this case it's the current issue of 'Nature'. >That's 'current' as in now, not 10 years ago. >http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041115/full/041115-9.html > >In my experience most of the BBC and decent newspaper stories are about as >up-to-date as they could be, and I've often gone right out and bought >the journal in which a story appeared. > >I suspect your 'usually about 10 years out of date' is wrong by about >9 years 11 months and 3 weeks, and that you yourself are not running >fast enough to get out from behind the curve.
Yeah! With knobs on!! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
