> I don't think you're giving enough credit to the author of this summary by calling it "breathless." I think you're right -- on rereading I shouldn't be layin

> I don't think you're giving enough credit to the author of this summary by calling it "breathless." I think you're right -- on rereading I shouldn't be laying the smackdown on the Ars article: he does use the paper as an example of the scientific process at work. Nonetheless I think that by advertising a paper which hasn't been through peer review, he's promoting it. It'd have been a lot better if he told his story with an example which has already gone through the cycle of being proposed, shot down, and buried.