Shipping to: Worldwide. No additional import charges at delivery! This item will be shipped through the Global Shipping Program and includes international tracking. Learn more - opens in a new window or tab. There are 1 items available. Please enter a number less than or equal to 1. Select a valid country.
Please enter 5 or 9 numbers for the ZIP Code. Delivery times may vary, especially during peak periods. Handling time. Will usually ship within 2 business days of receiving cleared payment - opens in a new window or tab. Taxes may be applicable at checkout. Learn more. Return policy. Refer to eBay Return policy for more details.
You are covered by the eBay Money Back Guarantee if you receive an item that is not as described in the listing. Payment details. Payment methods. Other offers may also be available. Interest will be charged to your account from the purchase date if the balance is not paid in full within 6 months. Minimum monthly payments are required. Subject to credit approval. See terms - opens in a new window or tab. Seller's payment instructions BWB payment policy. Back to home page. Listed in category:. Email to friends Share on Facebook - opens in a new window or tab Share on Twitter - opens in a new window or tab Share on Pinterest - opens in a new window or tab Add to Watchlist.
Opens image gallery Image not available Photos not available for this variation.
Learn more - opens in new window or tab Seller information betterworldbookswest See all betterworldbookswest has no other items for sale. Sellers set the item's declared value and must comply with customs declaration laws. Buyers may be subject to additional charges for customs clearance. For additional information, see the Global Shipping Program terms and conditions - opens in a new window or tab No additional import charges on delivery Delivery: Estimated between Thu.
Payments: Special financing available.
An error occurred, please try again. Good : A book that has been read but is in good condition. He's prolific. They have ideas with subsets of ideas and reactions to ideas indented beneath the original ideas. The handwriting is perfect. I have a reputation for my notes. For Rhodes, who wrote much of the I. One result of this experience was that when Rhodes joined the Obama campaign in , he arguably knew more about the Iraq war than the candidate himself, or any of his advisers.
He had also developed a healthy contempt for the American foreign-policy establishment, including editors and reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and elsewhere, who at first applauded the Iraq war and then sought to pin all the blame on Bush and his merry band of neocons when it quickly turned sour. He referred to the American foreign-policy establishment as the Blob. According to Rhodes, the Blob includes Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and other Iraq-war promoters from both parties who now whine incessantly about the collapse of the American security order in Europe and the Middle East.
Boost thinks very highly of me. My notes are so impressive that they have taken on the form of ideas, he feels. Connections are made between two opposing ideas that were not apparent in the meeting. I have gotten at not only the representation of things, but the way that the mind actually works. I sit next to Boost in the meetings. The ideas fly like radio waves. I am silent in these meetings, taking notes. Power is now the American ambassador to the United Nations. Early on, what struck her about Rhodes was how strategic he was.
And he understood intuitively that having the pen gave him that control. The literary character that Rhodes most closely resembles, Power volunteers, is Holden Caulfield. In Afghanistan the Taliban dynamites enormous statues of Buddha, the ancient material imploding and crumbling to the ground, small specks of men can be seen watching in the foreground.
This is somewhere else. Far away. On his first day in the West Wing, Rhodes remembers thinking how remarkably small the space was, and noticing that the same few dozen people he worked with at campaign headquarters in Chicago were now wearing suits instead of jeans. The enormousness of the endeavor sank in on that first day, and he realized that for all the prep work, there was no manual for how to be on the staff of the person who is running the country, particularly at a time when the global economy was in free fall and , Americans were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He became aware of two things at once: the weight of the issues that the president was confronted with, and the intense global interest in even the most mundane presidential communications. The job he was hired to do, namely to help the president of the United States communicate with the public, was changing in equally significant ways, thanks to the impact of digital technologies that people in Washington were just beginning to wrap their minds around. You have to have skin in the game — to be in the news business, or depend in a life-or-death way on its products — to understand the radical and qualitative ways in which words that appear in familiar typefaces have changed.
Rhodes singled out a key example to me one day, laced with the brutal contempt that is a hallmark of his private utterances. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns.
They literally know nothing. In this environment, Rhodes has become adept at ventriloquizing many people at once. The easiest way for the White House to shape the news, he explained, is from the briefing podiums, each of which has its own dedicated press corps.
Price laughed. This is something different from old-fashioned spin, which tended to be an art best practiced in person. Now the most effectively weaponized character idea or quote will almost always carry the day, and it is very difficult for even good reporters to necessarily know where the spin is coming from or why. Axelrod, a former newspaperman, sighed. The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal.
Even where the particulars of that story are true, the implications that readers and viewers are encouraged to take away from those particulars are often misleading or false. The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration. By obtaining broad public currency for the thought that there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a divisive but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making.
With one bold move, the administration would effectively begin the process of a large-scale disengagement from the Middle East. The person whom Kreikemeier credits with running the digital side of the campaign was Tanya Somanader, 31, the director of digital response for the White House Office of Digital Strategy, who became known in the war room and on Twitter as TheIranDeal.
Early on, Rhodes asked her to create a rapid-response account that fact-checked everything related to the Iran deal. The fact that the president largely let his surrogates do the talking and the selling of the Iran deal — and even now, rarely talks about it in public — does not reflect his level of direct engagement. Sullivan and Burns spent hours before and after every session in Oman with the president and his closest advisers in the White House.
The White House point person during the later stage of the negotiations was Rob Malley, a favored troubleshooter who is currently running negotiations that could keep the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in power. During the course of the Iran talks, Malley told me, he always kept in close contact with Rhodes. But then he would also ask himself: How do we sell it to Congress?
Usually, the new theories are based on different interpretations of FACTS than established beliefs, e. Sadly reviewer decisions are not always based on the scientific content of the manuscript. Their judgement can be biased or personal. I have always felt that it is unnecessary for a Reviewer or even Editor to know the Authors Name or Affiliation. They can make their decisions solely based on the "Scientific Content" of the manuscript. For all of you who think that there is a conspiracy to suppress breakthroughs in science, think about this. Later in the s and s, the theories of General Relativity and quantum mechanics were formed and published.
In the s and s theories of the expanding universe and cosmology were introduced.
In the s and s the concepts of quantumelectrodynamics were firmed up. In the s to s the Standard Model was developed.
In the discoveries of the continued inflation of the Universe were made. I have lived in an amazing time for a scientist to be alive. Things are being discovered, tested, and accepted in all fields.
Early on, Rhodes asked her to create a rapid-response account that fact-checked everything related to the Iran deal. But Trump liked him, so Pence had to take him. But he did, in the most important ways, create it. Open Preview See a Problem? The greatest problem of the current "peer" review process is "peer". The article inspired months of deliberation, until a new editor—Richard Blumenthal, who is now a Democratic senator from Connecticut—broke the deadlock by deciding to publish it.
Those who think there is some conspiracy to preclude their pet theory just don't have to ability to test it themselves and submit it as a paper. The flip side of this is no peer review or censorship of peer reviews in order to sell books. Stanford continues to promote his outdated and dispelled hypothesis of Atlantic crossings to North America by Solutreans.
Owsley is still pushing Polynesians as the actual Paleo-Indians. Even with DNA proving the original colonizers of the "new" World were the ancestors of today's contemporary Indians, Owsley and Stanford still crank out book after book supporting their personal pet theories. Adding the word "Smithsonian" makes people think books written or information provided is factual and well researched when in some cases it is actually just some crazy book sales promotion for a couple of employees with over active imaginations.
Dr Iain McGilchrist , Psychiatrist, has studied how we use our two brains. The Left brain makes up models of reality, the Right brain experiences the gestaldt. Empirical data. He argues that there is an unsubtle shift in the balance in favour of the Left hemisphere, since the Enlightenment. This is a psychiatric malady and manifests in a rejection of empirical evidence in favour of models of reality.
The unconsious bias is "If the evidence conflicts with the model, then the evidence must be wrong. Science must be based on empirical evidence, and the model must be reshaped to fit the evidence. This phenomenon shows up again and again in unreasonably rejected observations. The form that the observation is presented is one of style and culture, not substance.
It could be presented by a Youtube video and still be valid. Dec 24, I'm not sure what the big deal here is. The overwhelming majority of the studies were published elsewhere after the prestigious ie. In that way one can find factual fault with a theory. Even different interpretations of facts must adhere to this Note how e. Einstein's new interpretation of the facts - making time and space mutable - did not lead to internal contradictions and was also consistent with all observables at the time.
That's why reviewers don't. It's a blind process. Papers are sent out anonymized. Editors must know the author because they are in charge of passing review comments from reviewers back to the author. Editors do NOT make a content-based judgement, They judge merely whether it's in the right field for the journal and whether the format is correct. Yes, in the way "Your study is interesting but not suitable for our type of journal, sorry". Did you ever attempt to publish something?
Yes, and funnily enough that is exactly what happened to my last paper. This study was about peer-review studies, not about prestigious journals. Then even more so: what's the problem? The studies were published. Of course the people who don't perceive it as a problem cannot contribute to its solution.
Again: if you have a better idea, let's hear it. There is always room for improvement. I would like to have larger review panels, but the load on researchers is already big enough as it is. It's just not feasible. As noted: it's unpaid time you put into reviews. We're talking research. Stuff that has never been seen before. At the point of review there is only one true expert: The author s. And the people who judge must do the best they can with what they are provided. They aren't infallible, but being independent of one another and being smart and well versed in the same field the results are pretty good.
Its always been like that. New findings always upset the establishment. Its dumb to think that those at the top are always ready to admit they spent their entire careers being wrong or otherwise short sighted. Bongstar "Its always been like that. After it became universally accepted except for a very view diehards and pseudoscientic cranks. Dec 25, They rather tend to conserve the existing status, being satisfied with it. You know, if you can't answer the question, it's okay to admit it. Just repeating past posts doesn't really contribute anything. While you are busy getting your rejected paper back, addressing the reviewers issues and resubmitting, the competing lab steals your research, replicates it, and publishes it under their own name.
I am sure you think that is a really good theory Skippy. But why you not put it to the test like ol Ira just did. Ask the google-Skippy how much that happens from all the thousands of rejected papers every year. Google-Skippy only knows about four or three of that, and three of them is the same crankpots morons just acting like fools and everybody is making the fun with them. So, if a competing lab gets to review your paper, and they want to be dicks, they will come up with bull shit reasons why your paper should be rejected. Just because on reviewer rejects a paper does not mean that the paper will be rejected by the journal.
Especially if it's an obvious bullshit reason and none of the other reviewers found it. Handing in such a review will mean that that reviewer can be expected to have reviewed his last paper, BTW. Reviewer's reputations are on the line with every review. While you are busy getting your rejected paper back, addressing the reviewers issues and resubmitting, the competing lab steals your research, replicates it, and publishes That's an insane idea - even by your standards.
So they can't replicate off the cuff in the time between review and resubmission and remember: THEY would have to do the work, write, and go through the entire submission porcess too And they won't get in the same journal. There's prestigious journals you want to publish in - not just any journal.
A lab that comes out of nowhere and publishes your same results without the data and you being ON RECORD having submitted elsewhere months earlier would find itself in a position where questions get asked. Hint for you: Start getting some real experience - and stop pulling crazy conspiracies out your hole. The greatest problem of the current "peer" review process is "peer". In general, the review is within one 1 stated discipline. To quote Dr. Marvin Herndon: "The visionary evolutionist, Lynn Margulis, taught the importance of envisioning the Earth as a whole, rather than as unrelated segments spread among various scientific specialties.
Margulis was the wife of Carl Sagan, and her pronouncement of Endosymbiosis was entirely rejected by mainstream biologists of her era. Just as is the work of Dr.
Marvin Herndon The GeoReactor. Is it so hard to understand that fission at the core of every planet is the ever-present counterpart to fusion the stars across the Universe? Lynn Margulis got one very important thing right Endosymbiosis but other things wrong. Herndon has no accomplishments as comparable and his hypothesis is just plain silly.
I'm dealing only with insane ideas That explains a thing or two. From what you have written here in the past few years you have an understanding of science and the scientific process that seems to be gleaned from comic books and hollywood movies exclusively. Sorry, but that does not make you a good judge of what constitutes a good theory or not. Get an education. Then you will quickly see what you are presenting here is utter bunk. Dec 26, The work of Galois was rejected by the French Academy after peer review by Fourier and others.
How you are Zephir-Skippy? I'm good thanks. The Skippy that did that study article paper thing is he the same Valentine-Cawley-Skippy who makes the Youtube videos about his son who has the IQ of or ? I think he goes by the name of of Mr-Genuis-Skippy-Man. So that must be a good linkum what you post there. What his genius son have to say about the peer-Skippys reviewing your stuffs? And where he weighs in on the AWT and neutrinos from the future?
Steve mph Cruiz. Ugh the wackos will remember this statistical analysis, but ignore every hard fact that proved them wrong in the past years. Dec 28, Glad the Inhaler. Peer review blocks scientific progress every day of every week.
And like the Church before them, these modern-day gatekeepers brook no heresy. Roundly vilified with careers dashed on the shoals of academic isolation be they who dare to test the resolve of those who job is to protect the Standard Model. This is why we are still saddled with the abundantly falsified-by-observation "Big Bang " theory. Just ask the recently departed modern-day Galileo named Halton Arp, whose meticulous quasar observations alone disprove Big Bang.
They rescinded his telescope time, destroyed his career, and all but buried his information. Thus astrophysics is stalled in this world. In olden days when amateur scientists were making many of the discoveries and publishing on their own account for all to see, this was not the problem it is today.
Glad, I read the stuff of Arp, and did not see his idea of redshift origins. Did he just say "No, it isn't", then base a theory on that without telling us why and how? Do you know to what he ascribes redshift? Few if any comments has addressed the key point afaiac : NONE of the 14 most cited papers most popular were published in those 3 top journals. A reasonable conclusion is that the journals are epic fails or their mission isn't to challenge the status quo.
My response to the "we can't have checklists, its Research! But where adoption did occur, patient complications including deaths dropped greatly. Experts often overestimate their own competence and underestimate their biases. OTOH, impact might be better than citations, and questions about filtering out self-citations and group incest citations occur to me.
I also didn't see anyone seriously questioning the assumption that medical "science" is science research rather than engineering research Papers should be scored and results given to authors, if rejected, imho. Experts often overestimate their own competence and underestimate their biases Again: what's the alternative? Asking people in the street whether a paper should be accepted or not?
Those best qualified to make a judgement should judge. And those happento bet he experts who have actually experience of a particular field. And judgement is necessary because there area lot of cranks out there.
If you just publish anything on a first-come-first-serve basis then you get Mad Magazine. That peer review isn't perfect isn't news even though the statistics support that it is very, very good. Dec 29, But are the specialists in given field really these best ones qualified for it?
If you have no answer for this stop griping. The 'public' is certainly not qualified to read a paper and see whether it's good or not. The lack the solid founding of math, physics, statistics and the particular field. They could merely judge on whether it's flashy enough. Science isn't a popularity contest. When you review you don't know where in the world the research originated from peer review is anonymized, remember?
There's no competition there. And science is certainly not a profession you choose for the fame. So people aren't jostling for the limelight, either. Oh man I advise you to go talk to actual scientists and find out just how utterly wrong your world-view is. But I suspect you want to continue living in your fantasy world. For what reason exactly? So I'll leave you to it. Some people need religion to give them a sense of self-worth If there is none, then the theory is not a scientific theory.
Hey Zephir-Skippy, how you are podna? I only know science from real life, which is even more freaky.