On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, sapphirebrand2000 wrote:
> The authors of the paper made no bold claims, backed up all of their > assertions, and behaved completely correctly in all respects. I have > to be very disappointed with the way New Scientist misrepresented > their work. I've never read much out of New Scientist, but as I am given to understand in some circles, they used to be pretty good but nowadays any kind of Breaking News that's reported there first reliably turns out to be the kind of crackpot nonsense that's ruined Usenet science groups. Not to say that the work being reported on is crackpot nonsense, but the current quality of reporting has more to do with Weekly World News than Scientific American, so one shouldn't be too disappointed. --gvc
