Bob W wrote:
Hi,
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usually about 10 years out of date.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Perhaps you could point out some of their out-of-date stories.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I suspect your 'usually about 10 years out of date' is wrong by about 9 years 11 months and 3 weeks, and that you yourself are not running fast enough to get out from behind the curve.
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
--P.J. O'Rourke
