2 ms·
Rather superficial report from the Telegraph. As one might expect from modern journalism this (and other) similar reports fail to note the very high levels of f
by bdfh42 17y ago
Rather superficial report from the Telegraph. As one might expect from modern journalism this (and other) similar reports fail to note the very high levels of false positives and false negatives such a technique would produce. This 'might' be useful as additional evidence but as first line screening it would simply not work
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- jacquesm 17y agoThe day a mainstream publication will mention such things and where the error bars were I'm going to be seriously impressed. The general trend over time seems to be less rather than more 'hard' information. Even in the science departments of such publications the 'human interest' angle creeps in more and more. It's closer to science entertainment than it is to real information that you could apply to something. In part this is because scientific papers seem to be written and titled to obfuscate rather than to enlighten, it is rare to see a paper that is so well written that someone active in a different subfield but interested in the subject matter would be able to understand even the abstract, forget about laypeople. They need to the press to explain these things in terms of everyday use. Incidentally, Hossam Haick is one of technology reviews top 35 scientists for 2008. A link with a lot more information on the device and the scientist: http://www.technologyreview.com/files/20768/TR35_Hossam_Haick.pdf?download&track http://www.technologyreview.com/files/20768/TR35_Hossam_Haic...