SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (863949)6/9/2015 6:15:49 PM
From: i-node  Respond to of 1578702
 
There is no more rigorous peer review process than that undergone by CPAs. I know because I've paid to have it done.

That didn't help much with Enron, did it?

In fact, peer review is useless against fraud.



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (863949)6/9/2015 6:19:36 PM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1578702
 
WR,
No, it didn't.
Yes it did.
Try submitting that graph to PNAS or the Proceedings of the Royal Society, and time how long the laughter goes on.
It was already done, but the laughter was rather brief and nervous.

It was then followed by the manipulation of data that we saw NOAA do.

Tenchusatsu


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News