Ok, I'm behind.
Is this piece in Wired being deliberately obtuse? Or are the editors of Wired just that stupid?
Not that I had much to begin with, but I've completely lost all respect and belief in the technical acumen of the people working for Wired. This article is all kinds of badly researched, badly reasoned, and just plain idiotic. Somehow, I expect a tech based magazine to have some scientific accuracy.
Not that I had much to begin with, but I've completely lost all respect and belief in the technical acumen of the people working for Wired. This article is all kinds of badly researched, badly reasoned, and just plain idiotic. Somehow, I expect a tech based magazine to have some scientific accuracy.