backtop


Print 85 comment(s) - last by xeroshadow.. on Sep 25 at 12:47 PM


Professor Macolm Casadaban of the University of Chicago has died in what appears to be an unusual accident. Reportedly the autoposy revealed that exposure to a weakened strain of the plague enterobacteria may have killed him.  (Source: University of Chicago)
Incident echoes death of Russian Cold War researcher

In 1988, 44-year-old Russian bioweapons researcher Dr. Nikolai Ustinov while working at Russia's Vector Institute on the Marburg virus, a potent pathogen, accidentally pricked himself with a needle he was using to inject guinea pigs.  The researcher was kept in quarantine, and he kept a detailed journal of his symptoms, even as his fingers bled onto the pages.  In the end he died and Russia harvested his blood to produce Variant U, named in his honor, which was one of the most pathogenic bioweapons to date.

Professor Malcolm J. Casadaban of the U. of C. Medical Center, a prestigious researcher with degrees from Harvard, Stanford and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology followed a much different path -- one of medical research to prevent disease -- but has been found dead, presumably in a similar incident. 

The professor had been working with a weakened strain of plague bacteria to study its genetics.  In theory, the weakened version was harmless, but an autopsy of the 60-year-old molecular geneticist showed "no obvious cause of death".  What it did find was the presence of the weakened strain of the plague bacteria Yersinia pestis in his blood.  The strain has been Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for lab studies and is believed to be nonpathogenic, but some doctors are theorizing it might have killed Professor Casadaban.

Dr. Kenneth Alexander, a virologist and chief of pediatric infections at the U. of C. Medical Center says that its understandable that Professor Casadaban was exposed to the bacteria as it was assumed to be harmless and no special safety precautions were required to handle it. According to him, the typical procedure is to wear gloves, a lab coat and protective goggles, and the bacteria would be disposed of in a biohazard bag and heated for about two hours.

Officials are still trying to determine whether Professor Casadaban had any preexisting conditions that made him more susceptible to the strain, or if there was something different about the particular strain he was working with.  They have notified his close contacts and are working with the CDC to isolate them, as a precaution.

Dr. Alexander is at a loss about how the weakened strain could cause death.  He bemoans, "There's no indication thus far that this is anything different from the laboratory strain that we know it to be.  I can't find any reports of anything like this happening before."

His 21-year-old daughter Leigh Casadaban remarks on the tragic loss, stating, "[Dad] tried so hard to be healthy. He hated smoking. He would never even let us watch a movie with smoking in it. He never used alcohol."

Officials have reportedly found no evidence of foul play involved in the death.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Wow...seriously
By MeesterNid on 9/21/2009 12:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but an autopsy of the 60-year-old molecular genetics


The correct word would be geneticist here




RE: Wow...seriously
By DarkElfa on 9/21/2009 12:36:44 PM , Rating: 1
Well Sieg Heil to you too Word Hitler.

honestly guys, despite spelling errors and the like, you can still understand what the story is about. Do you guys just come here to harass the authors about their grammar?! Stop Trolling and derailing the topic over your OCPD.


RE: Wow...seriously
By Steve1981 on 9/21/2009 1:00:28 PM , Rating: 4
Wuold uyo repfer ot reda aritclse wittren ilke htis? Fi uoy ingore rlues thye bcemoe eamninglsse.


RE: Wow...seriously
By stirfry213 on 9/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: Wow...seriously
By TomZ on 9/21/2009 1:04:18 PM , Rating: 4
Better yet, maybe DT authors should proofread their articles and have an editor review them. That would allow readers to focus more on the content rather than being distracted by all the spelling, grammar, diction, and factual errors.


RE: Wow...seriously
By npoe1 on 9/21/2009 2:21:41 PM , Rating: 5
I support grammar Nazis because English is not native to me... and I want to learn it right.


RE: Wow...seriously
By ClownPuncher on 9/21/2009 3:54:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I support grammar Nazis because English is not native to me... and I want to learn it correctly .

:D


RE: Wow...seriously
By inighthawki on 9/21/2009 4:58:11 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the word "right" fits there just perfectly...

right
adv
-Accurately; correctly: answered the question right.


RE: Wow...seriously
By foolsgambit11 on 9/21/2009 6:09:55 PM , Rating: 4
In fact, in common usage, right may be a better pick than correctly. "I want to learn it right" definitely means 'I want to learn proper English', while "I want to learn it correctly" introduces a little ambiguity in my mind, where it might mean, 'I want to learn English using the correct process by which to learn English'. I mean, I would probably assume it means the same thing as 'right', and the author was being pretentious, but perhaps they chose 'correctly' to specifically distinguish their meaning from the same sentence using 'right'.

Or maybe I'm overanalyzing it.

But yes, generally speaking, only extreme traditionalists will insist on 'correctly' over 'right', most likely because 'correctly' sounds more proper because it is has Latin roots, while 'right' is Germanic/Anglo-Saxon in origin. "Proper" speech almost always favors Latin-rooted words.


RE: Wow...seriously
By JohnnyCNote on 9/21/2009 4:36:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I support grammar Nazis because English is not native to me... and I want to learn it right.


"Props" to you for taking your study of English seriously!

As a student of several languages, including Spanish, Russian, Greek, German and French, I can fully appreciate what you're saying. I would never have attained the proficiencies I have without being corrected . . .


RE: Wow...seriously
By Regs on 9/21/2009 10:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
I've been trying to learn it right for the past 27 years. It's almost like it changes from day-to-day.


RE: Wow...seriously
By Icehearted on 9/24/2009 9:06:59 PM , Rating: 3
I freely admit that I am a Grammar Nazi, but words are what I do, and I believe I do them well.

Contextually speaking, while correct or right might have either been perfectly applicable in this case, I would have recommended one go with restructuring the sentence entirely. English, however, is not the poster's native language, so considering this (as well as taking into account the malleability of the English language, especially in it's Americanized iteration) I'd say he did a fine job.

As I read the article I was reminded of Stephen King's "The Stand". If his death was the result o this virus, it worries me to think of what other potential mishaps are just waiting to happen.


RE: Wow...seriously
By jonup on 9/21/2009 2:57:08 PM , Rating: 4
So, you get distracted by a typo? Don't you have something better to do?
I do agree with you that they should proof read their articles.


RE: Wow...seriously
By Alexstarfire on 9/21/2009 3:11:01 PM , Rating: 2
I may not be distracted by typos, but it doesn't mean that they should simply just be ignored either. Considering the amount of typos and other grammar errors on here I'd say a high schooler wrote it. Man, high schooler looks really wrong, ohh well. I'm not saying this site is CNN or something, but come on. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be ANY quality control. These are simple mistakes, not like a misplaced comma or something that 95% of people won't notice.


RE: Wow...seriously
By afkrotch on 9/22/2009 2:44:01 AM , Rating: 5
A small typo can be distracting. Like a small fart during the middle of a symphony can be distracting.


RE: Wow...seriously
By CascadingDarkness on 9/22/2009 11:34:06 AM , Rating: 2
This is definately the best analogy I've heard in a long time.


RE: Wow...seriously
By jonmcc33 on 9/22/2009 11:28:35 AM , Rating: 3
It would be necessary if these were in fact "articles". In reality they are merely blogs which generally point to actual articles.


RE: Wow...seriously
By xeroshadow on 9/25/2009 12:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
What was this article about?


RE: Wow...seriously
By joex444 on 9/21/2009 5:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
How well one can decipher its apparent meaning is a meaningless topic.

What is really going on here is the fact that you are on the Internet and the best way to communicate an article is by typing it. Thus, it must be read. When you read something that is put together poorly you begin to question the legitimacy of the author, and hence the organization. As such, when you consider on the whole how many mistakes are found on DT on a daily basis, its actually quite surprising that people trust them with any sort of information. I mean, if you can make these kinds of mistakes how easy would it be to accidentally put in or leave out a "not" and then you have a brand new article.


Correction
By nismotigerwvu on 9/21/2009 11:56:34 AM , Rating: 3
"Dr. Kenneth Alexander, a virologist and chief of pediatric infections at the U. of C. Medical Center says that its understandable that Professor Casadaban was exposed to the virus as it was assumed to be harmless and no special safety precautions were required to handle it."

Yersinia pestis is a bacteria, not a virus.




RE: Correction
By polaris2k4 on 9/21/2009 12:45:58 PM , Rating: 4
The article says bacteria, the photo caption says virus...
Does no one ever proofread around here??


RE: Correction
By h0kiez on 9/21/2009 2:11:30 PM , Rating: 5
This is news to you?


RE: Correction
By Maxima2k2se on 9/21/2009 2:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
Eye tink dis was a reetorical kwestchun?


RE: Correction
By FITCamaro on 9/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Correction
By afkrotch on 9/22/2009 2:45:43 AM , Rating: 4
It's a viructeria.


strange death
By frozentundra123456 on 9/21/2009 2:14:26 PM , Rating: 5
Although I am not an MD, I do work in medical research and it seems that something has not been found yet about this occurance.
First, even if the organism was not supposed to be pathogenic, good laboratory practice would cause one to assume that it could be and use all reasonable precautions to minimize exposure.
Secondly, even if he died from the bacteria, there should have been some symtoms such as bleeding or fluid build up. I am not familiar with this bacteria, but it should have caused some kind of detectable pathology.
Possibly he became sensitized to the bacteria and had an anaphlactic reaction or died from an unrelated cause.




RE: strange death
By foolsgambit11 on 9/21/2009 5:54:14 PM , Rating: 3
That's what I was thinking. If he had actually died from the plague, you would imagine that there would be an obvious cause of death for the autopsy to report - buboes, etc. More likely, he was exposed to this non-pathogenic plague bacteria, and it was in his system, and he died from other causes.

Even if this bacteria didn't operate exactly like the common bubonic plague, there would still be some symptoms - a healthy person doesn't die from a bacterial infection without experiencing symptoms. (Imagine that - you feel perfectly healthy, and suddenly you're dead.)


RE: strange death
By Omega215D on 9/21/2009 10:16:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(Imagine that - you feel perfectly healthy, and suddenly you're dead.)


I've heard of this before... Andromeda strain I'm guessing... =P


RE: strange death
By jimhsu on 9/22/2009 8:19:32 PM , Rating: 2
Bio ramble:

Could it be a cytokine storm or something similar that is going on mechanistically? Similar things occur in some flu strains including H1N1 (maybe the one right now (in Mexico), but mostly during 1918). Working with the pathogen before and having a healthy immune system could result in huge releases of things like TNF-alpha and interleukins when he got actually exposed to the bacteria. Symptoms of that, while visible, might not be detected in an autopsy.


Technology?
By Spookster on 9/21/2009 1:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
Spelling and grammar errors aside. How is this even classified as technology news?




RE: Technology?
By RyuDeshi on 9/21/2009 7:01:31 PM , Rating: 3
Its Dailytech. This is nothing new.

They even have an article about dinosaurs.

I stopped asking that question months ago.


RE: Technology?
By MrBlastman on 9/22/2009 10:26:17 AM , Rating: 2
Ever hear of Biotech? As far as I'm concerned, anything science related on here is interesting to me, be it chips and bits or not.


Plague is the Plague...
By aguilpa1 on 9/21/2009 5:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
If it is alive and allowed to replicate it therefore also is being allowed to mutate by act of sheer existence. What was once a harmless variant could easily turn into something wicked. Nature is not controllable.




RE: Plague is the Plague...
By afkrotch on 9/22/2009 2:46:56 AM , Rating: 3
But you can burn it til some of it dies.


.
By rnj on 9/21/2009 7:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
there's barely any evidence that he died from infection..seems more likely he could have been exposed some time before and died due to a totally unrelated condition.




RE: .
By mindless1 on 9/22/2009 3:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
Then wouldn't his body have eliminated the alien virus by now? No, this is a sign it replicated and that in itself is a problem.

While it may not be the sole cause of death, let me put it another way...

Man drinks a 12 pack of beer, then drives drunk and crashes into a tree. Was drinking a 12 pack the sole cause of death?


In Other News...
By chagrinnin on 9/21/2009 5:53:16 PM , Rating: 3
Online journalists have discovered intentional typos increases reader's comments by 84%.




Should be Marburg virus
By AnnihilatorX on 9/21/2009 11:57:02 AM , Rating: 2
Marburg is the correct spelling




Source / Credit
By tdawg on 9/21/2009 6:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
Reading this article, I have a hard time believing it is an original creation. There needs to be a citation for this article, or the bulk of it from where this was cut and pasted together from, so the original reporter/reporting service gets due credit.

So, can we get a source for this news item?




Russians and Nazis?
By dark matter on 9/22/2009 2:44:52 AM , Rating: 2
That's when baddies in films had real class.




Gotta love the Russkies
By DarkElfa on 9/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Gotta love the Russkies
By Bigjee on 9/21/2009 12:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
Meh .....for Russia its not as exciting as putting a person with radioactive poisoning on a foreign commercial jet full of people.


RE: Gotta love the Russkies
By DarkElfa on 9/21/2009 12:48:18 PM , Rating: 1
I completely forgot about that. How do they even have a population left?!


RE: Gotta love the Russkies
By michaelklachko on 9/21/2009 2:40:22 PM , Rating: 4
It's shrinking.


RE: Gotta love the Russkies
By markitect on 9/21/2009 1:24:46 PM , Rating: 4
The Russian accident has nothing to do with the actual story.
I don't know if Mick is just trying to sensationalize his story, but the Russians took a very deadly virus and were attempting to make it deadlier.

The Univ. of Chicago researcher was using a bacteria considered to be harmless, and there is no report from anywhere other then here implying that he ever injected himself with it.

And Dr Ustinov was making a deadly weapon, and I firmly believe he died proud of what he created and if he had lived the only reason he would not like that it was named after him would be because it didn't kill him, and therefore he failed.


RE: Gotta love the Russkies
By TomZ on 9/21/2009 1:31:53 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
there is no report from anywhere other then here implying that he ever injected himself with it

Agreed, so where does Jason get the article title:

Veteran Researcher Dies After Accidental Injection of Plague Bacteria

???

Here is a link to the Reuters article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTR...

No mention of "accidental injection."


RE: Gotta love the Russkies
By drmo on 9/21/2009 1:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
Because they apparently don't wear masks, then he could have inhaled it and the bacteria got into his blood that way. As I recall, plague infection ususally occurs through inhalation or injection/flea bite.


RE: Gotta love the Russkies
By TomZ on 9/21/2009 2:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
When most people talk about "injection," they are talking about injection with a needle.


RE: Gotta love the Russkies
By omnicronx on 9/21/2009 2:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
Its still a plausible theory, its not like it is sitting out on a desk. The way they were exposing the test animals was most likely via needle, making it far more likely that an accidental prick could have infected him. Nobody thought it was a pathogen, so why treat it as such, he could have easily pricked himself and thought nothing of it. If he was infected, I really doubt it was via inhalation or touch, otherwise they probably would have found a cause by now, aas you would think the test specimen would have similar symptoms.


RE: Gotta love the Russkies
By drmo on 9/21/2009 3:02:50 PM , Rating: 3
If they thought it was nonpathogenic, they may very well have had it sitting out on a desk, or dropped a petri dish containing the bacteria (thus aerosolizing it). I didn't see where they were injecting animals, so either option is plausible. They could also be studying the pneumonic form in animals.

I'm surprised he wasn't vaccinated against the bacteria, even though it was not considered dangerous. Maybe there isn't a good vaccine.


RE: Gotta love the Russkies
By omnicronx on 9/21/2009 3:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
Heh there is no vaccine for the bubonic plague.. if thats what it really was. While what you say also seems plausible, I really doubt they have large quantities of the plague(or derivative of) to be leaving it out in a petri dish.


RE: Gotta love the Russkies
By drmo on 9/22/2009 9:33:42 AM , Rating: 2
It seems there was a plague vaccine, but it is no longer available in the United States.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/plague/prevent.htm


RE: Gotta love the Russkies
By jajig on 9/21/2009 8:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
You get vaccinated against viruses, you take antibiotics for bacterial infections.


RE: Gotta love the Russkies
By Gibsons on 9/22/2009 8:08:46 AM , Rating: 3
You can get vaccinated against bacterial infections. Tetanus and a few others.


RE: Gotta love the Russkies
By markitect on 9/21/2009 3:29:03 PM , Rating: 4
Standard handling procedures for something like this would be rubber gloves, surgical mask, and eye protection. It is in fact very plausible that it spent significant amount of time "sitting on the desk"

I know many researchers that use non-potent e-coli. And I've seen people eating lunch in the same lab they research in.

I think the lesson here is that viruses mutate quickly, and given enough exposure they will very possibly adapt to the limitations we've given them.


RE: Gotta love the Russkies
By omnicronx on 9/21/2009 3:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
The difference being, ecoli can be found pretty much anywhere, find some runoff and you got yourself some ecoli. You don't just leave something like this sitting out..deadly or not. It is well known that pretty much any samples are carefully controlled. i.e this is NOT the kind of thing that would be left out while eating lunch.


RE: Gotta love the Russkies
By michaelklachko on 9/21/2009 2:38:27 PM , Rating: 5
He was trying to invent "a devastating biological weapon". In the end his blood held the key to such weapon. They honored his death by naming this weapon in his name. Makes perfect sense, and it's probaby what he wanted.


RE: Gotta love the Russkies
By Hare on 9/21/2009 2:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So Dr. Nikolai Ustinov just happened to "accidentally" inject himself with plague and how do the Russians honor his death?


Yeah, nothing makes more sense than killing your best scientist instead of lets say a random prisoner if you want to test viruses? You have a rampant imagination. Too bad the real world is a bit less exciting and a lot more rational.

Besides Russia has not been the only one with these kinds of experiments and goals...


RE: Gotta love the Russkies
By michaelklachko on 9/21/2009 3:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
A more interesting question is, why couldn't they cure him?


RE: Gotta love the Russkies
By mmnno on 9/22/2009 4:45:59 AM , Rating: 2
Because he was infected by an Ebola-family virus. You ever hear of anybody curing that?


Embarrassing
By Crusty on 9/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Embarrassing
By Cheesew1z69 on 9/21/2009 12:31:29 PM , Rating: 4
Wrong...and maybe you should google before you make yourself look stupid?

* Main Entry: non·patho·gen·ic
* Pronunciation: \?nän-?pa-th?-'je-nik\
* Function: adjective
* Date: 1884

: not capable of inducing disease — compare avirulent

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonpatho...


RE: Embarrassing
By Crusty on 9/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Embarrassing
By Cheesew1z69 on 9/21/2009 12:39:29 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
non-pathogenic perhaps or maybe non pathogenic, but not nonpathenogic.
Merriam Webster says it's nonpathogenic....I posted the link, I am pretty sure I would trust Merriam Webster over you, no offense of course.

nonpathogenic
One entry found.

* Main Entry: non·patho·gen·ic
* Pronunciation: \?nän-?pa-th?-'je-nik\
* Function: adjective
* Date: 1884

: not capable of inducing disease — compare avirulent

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonpatho...


RE: Embarrassing
By DarkElfa on 9/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Embarrassing
By rippleyaliens on 9/21/2009 12:42:02 PM , Rating: 4
WOW.. After reading the last 5 DailyTech articles, my brain has had enough. I sometimes would post, about some of the internet tough guys posting simple stuff, of "your wrong, im right" etc.. BUT WOW, DailyTech,
1. I hope these articles are not outsourced..
2. Please send your staff to some Writing courses, please..............
3. Make that investment into MS WORD 2007... However clumsy word is, it has this thing called SPELL CHECK, and GRAMMAR CHECK.

I can understand the spelling part, but wow, the grammar is just sick. (check meh spelling please).. Some of the articles with the poor grammar actually leads to totally different messages then what was SUPPOSED to be presented.

I know IT guys , from the get go, are not good writers per say, but geeze.. this is getting retarded.. IF they are not paid, then oh well,, Spell Check is like, FREEEEEEE.. BUT the other portions like proper grammar will be tough.. BUT IF THESE ARE PAID PROFESSIONALS.. WTF..


RE: Embarrassing
By DarkElfa on 9/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Embarrassing
By TomZ on 9/21/2009 1:07:20 PM , Rating: 3
No DT is a news web site "clown shoe." There are blogs as well, but the majority of these articles are news stories, not blog entries.

I agree with the OP that the quality of DT articles is getting pretty bad lately. Barely professional if you ask me.


RE: Embarrassing
By epobirs on 9/21/2009 1:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
"Who went to school for this..."

Are you kidding? If any self-respecting high school teacher received this article as a student submission, it would come back covered in red marks. There is simply no excuse for such sloppiness. Review what you've written before posting. It's that simple.

This isn't just a blog. It is a business, and as such expected to meet some minimal standards of readability. The internet isn't lacking for competing sites that can take away readers not just on content but also the presentation of that content.


RE: Embarrassing
By DarkElfa on 9/21/2009 1:19:40 PM , Rating: 3
Sigh, fine if you guys would like to waste your time complaining about grammar than actually discussing the article at hand than so be it. I'm done trying to talk sense about it. This isn't a site I pay to read so I don't care what he misspells, I'm just happy I don't have to go everywhere to get my news interests. Personally, if I had as big of a problem with this as you seem to then I would talk to the managers and not assault the author in the article's thread which just makes you guys seem like petty losers who can't find anything reasonable to whine about so you pick the lowest form of criticism, the grammar complaint. Me, I'm not an English teacher and I'm not here to grade his paper, I'm here to read the article and his 5 or 6 misspells haven't caused me any issues.


RE: Embarrassing
By TomZ on 9/21/2009 1:59:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm done trying to talk sense about it.
That's your opinion, sir, and some of us happen to disagree. You make it sound like you are stating some kind of fact.

And the other thing you're forgetting is that the errors run rampant on these articles. If there was just a small typo here or there, probably nobody would care. The problem is that they occur all the time, and I think a portion of the readership is getting annoyed by them.


RE: Embarrassing
By Alexstarfire on 9/21/2009 3:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
While I would usually agree..... what is there to discuss? There isn't really an issue that's being talked about, no new tech stuff, nothing controversial, etc... A guy died for some reason and the circumstances are a bit odd, but that's it. It doesn't even really tell you how he died.

The fact that the comments talk about grammar more than the article just shows that DT tries to play up news articles and that many on here have found that talking about the grammar as more interesting than the article itself. Can't really blame them since it's true a good bit of the time.


RE: Embarrassing
By lotharamious on 9/21/2009 2:23:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
These are blogs clown shoe, not newspaper articles.

And there it is folks. IT IS A BLOG! Check every one of Mr. Mick's articles. Every last one of them is a blog. I bet there's spelling and grammatical errors in your blog, too. Stop whining.

You all can bitch and moan all you want, but it is not supposed to be a "news article". It doesn't matter what he uses for sources since it's a blog. Give him a break. Everyone here talking about grammar this and spelling that needs to STFU. Corrections or clarification on information in the articles are always welcome, however. Please quit this nonsense.


RE: Embarrassing
By TomZ on 9/21/2009 2:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
DT is not a blog web site. It is a news site that also has blogs, just like every other news web site.


RE: Embarrassing
By sigmatau on 9/21/2009 3:47:13 PM , Rating: 2
Who said DT was a blog website? Are you arguing with yourself now?


RE: Embarrassing
By TomZ on 9/22/2009 11:06:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And there it is folks. IT IS A BLOG! Check every one of Mr. Mick's articles. Every last one of them is a blog. I bet there's spelling and grammatical errors in your blog, too.


RE: Embarrassing
By lycium on 9/21/2009 9:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I bet there's spelling and grammatical errors in your blog, too.


i think you meant to say "there are", errors being plural and all ;)

of course there are other mistakes, but this one a wee kid might notice.


RE: Embarrassing
By Yawgm0th on 9/21/2009 1:22:33 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I know IT guys , from the get go, are not good writers per say, but geeze..

I agree with your post entirely except for this. I take offense to that on two counts.

First, working in IT but having previously worked in journalism myself, I'd like to think I'm a darn decent writer. ;)

Second, most of the Dailytech staff has shown at best trivial IT/computer science knowledge, with certain offenders showing an alarming lack of understanding of their articles' subject matters. If it weren't for that pesky 1st Amendment, I might lobby Congress to revoke their privilege to write virtualization articles or even use the words "cloud" and "computing" in the same paragraph.


RE: Embarrassing
By drmo on 9/21/2009 1:36:37 PM , Rating: 3
I pasted this article into WORD, and it only got one grammar error: its (should be it's). So if the meaning of a sentence is wrong, then it is not due to grammar that is easily detected by a program.

Also, as far as the non-pathogenic vs. nonpathogenic, hyphens have been removed from many words. As the hyphenated constructions have become more used they eventually become accepted words and the hyphens are removed.


RE: Embarrassing
By omnicronx on 9/21/2009 2:40:30 PM , Rating: 4
You know.. I can stand the spelling/grammar errors, but if I see one more virtualization article, I may go on a killingspree..


RE: Embarrassing
By Robear on 9/21/2009 2:47:29 PM , Rating: 2
All criticism aside, I do think the responsible thing to do would be to have a professional editor review the content.

DT gets a lot of readers, and there's definitely a stigma of err with the articles of late. You can't be regarded as a professional news source with the glaring errors we've been seeing.

On a lighter note, I'm always impressed with the choice of images associated with the articles :)


RE: Embarrassing
By talozin on 9/21/2009 3:18:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I know IT guys , from the get go, are not good writers per say, but geeze..


As an IT guy, I regret to inform you that you've touched on one of my pet peeves: it's "per se", from the Latin phrase meaning "by itself" or "by themselves."


RE: Embarrassing
By DarkElfa on 9/21/2009 4:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
People, look at the word next to Jason Mick's name. It says BLOG. How in your infinite search for typos did you manage to miss that?! I've noticed the names on here making the complaints and most of them are critics of Jason Mick's views, not his grammar. Like I said, you guys are trying to find fault with him and belittle his ideas and the only recourse your seem to have open to you is the petty act of grammar criticism. So in closing just let it go. Could the articles be proof read better? Sure they could, most articles on most sites could but we didn't need 15 people to point it out and turn 3/4 of the entire thread into a fight over proper grammar usage.

If you have a problem, contact the staff.


RE: Embarrassing
By jbartabas on 9/21/2009 4:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People, look at the word next to Jason Mick's name. It says BLOG. How in your infinite search for typos did you manage to miss that?!


The (blog) is actually a link to a list of his blog posts. It does not mean anything else. Now click it, and tell us if you find the present piece in his blogs.


RE: Embarrassing
By molgenit on 9/24/2009 1:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
You really should look before you write. Blogs on this site clearly have the phrase Blog:section before the title. As another poster stated the small (blog) is simple a link to Jason's blog page.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki