It's pretty simple. No one has had a nuclear bomb dropped on them lately. Social Media, on the other hand, is sort of like a faucet dripping.

Right.

Except that my point about the article -- that it implies that there is lots of fraud in science -- has already been made by the fact that a fair number of commenters jumped right to that unproven implication.

And it would be quite reasonable to complain about such a study of cancer deaths if the article implied that the deaths were substantially greater than might be expected in the general population, without offering evidence.

Respectfully, you're compounding the error by referring to "all fraudsters" and the "situation of medical science," implying, by language, that this is a much larger problem than statistics show when considering the enormous volume of scientific articles. I'm not a scientist but I'm very good at interpreting numbers.

I didn't say that fraud does not exist, or that there isn't pressure to produce publishable results that might affect accuracy or ethics (on occasion.) I said that this is a much smaller problem than the article implies. Only the retractions were analyzed; the retractions are a vanishingly small percentage of the total. If you want to argue that the retractions are the tip of an iceberg of falsified scientific data, let me know.

I think that the article implicitly misrepresents the level of misconduct by leaving out some relevant statistics. ... More than 2,000 scientific articles, retracted! And ... fraud! ... plagiarism!

In context -- PubMed has more than 22 million documents and accepts 500,000 a year, according to Wikipedia.

So, to do the math: Number of fraudulent articles, total, = vanishingly small percentage of the total articles.

This question only needed one answer, and the first post had it.

I wonder if that has ever happened here before?

... that if climate change were legitimate, the Earth would "shut down" and prevent any bad consequences.

The doctor himself said: "Fair question." During a public hearing. Whether the story is worthy of slashdot or not, I wouldn't judge. But the "news reporting" itself is actually exemplary.

... and probably the more likely it is that they're posted somewhere that no one needs a password to see them.

So I take it that those users who do NOT "provide their official government-issued identification numbers ... and link to a cellphone account ..." will suffer greatly by having to sign up for another fake account every single time they run out of points ... Gosh, that's harsh.

... the more likely it is that you actually have an identity worth stealing.

It was heck, fighting those Javanese Androids, nothing to eat buy Apples.

I don't detect any fear, uncertainty or doubt about the facts of this particular case. Apple had its day in court. The facts seem quite clear.

There is nothing, including the negative reaction of practically everyone other than Apple Kool-Aid (tm) drinkers, that they should not have seen coming.

It's a terrifically interesting and newsworthy story. The only thing missing is Tim Cook's answer to the question, "Why?"

... has done just an excellent job in separating out, among all my friends and acquaintances, those who want me to spend my life looking at their photographs or mouse-clicking through Zynga games. And it largely segregates them.

Works for me.