From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Jan 27 11:58:58 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from wondermutt.net (host75-157.student.udel.edu [128.175.75.157]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BFBC156AB for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:58:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from papalia@udel.edu) Received: from morgaine (morgaine.wondermutt.net [192.168.1.2]) by wondermutt.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA06467; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:59:55 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from papalia@udel.edu) Message-Id: <4.1.20000127145334.00a3df00@mail.udel.edu> X-Sender: papalia@mail.udel.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:56:46 -0500 To: Alfred Perlstein From: John Subject: Re: cnn.com - "King of the network operating systems" Cc: "Morten A. Middelthon" , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <20000126143352.J26520@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <4.1.20000126121045.00974640@mail.udel.edu> <4.1.20000126121045.00974640@mail.udel.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I was just thinking... with any truly scientific experiment, there has to be legitimate documentation on the procedures used for the experiment. These serve for three main purposes: first so you can follow what you did. Second so you can repeat the experiment, hopefully coming to the same conclusions. And third, so that outside parties can duplicate your results. I'm wondering if it's worth asking the two "authors" to see their procedures and use that information as a potential basis of a "letter to the editor"? Afterall, CNN is a MAJOR media base, and would probably hate to be disemminating faulty data? Just a thought... --John To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message