Expert testimony is provided by individuals with specialized knowledge or training in a particular field, while peer testimony is offered by individuals who have similar experiences or backgrounds as the person they are testifying for. Expert testimony is based on professional expertise and research, while peer testimony relies on personal experiences and observations. Expert testimony is often used in legal proceedings or formal settings, while peer testimony is more informal and based on personal relationships.
Expert testimony is from people who are respected and acknowledged as having authority in their field. Citing these type of people helps to establish credibility, especially when talking about controversial topics with a skeptical audience. Peer testimony is the opinions of people with firsthand experience of the topic, this can be valuable because it is a more personal viewpoint.
This is a home work my friend:)
cooperation involves co-op, 2 random pupils peer review, "peer" requires you to have friends its easy
In a peer to peer network, all nodes are the same. In a client-server network, conversely, the server node maintains control over other nodes.
peer testimony
There really is no difference in this case, as they are both much less profitable and fun when compared to sneaking into a bank at the dead of night to fool around with laser pointers.
p2p means peer to peer there it no differences between the two
Distinguish between Peer-to-Peer and server based networks
The main difference between science and pseudoscience is that science is based on evidence, experimentation, and peer review, while pseudoscience lacks these rigorous methods and often relies on unproven claims or beliefs.
With a PoP, you are only connecting to one company's network. In an IXP, you have the ability to peer with many different networks.
communication between two host in the network.................... here peer nothing but a host
Daubert's ruling was established in 1993 under the case of Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. It relates to expert testimony and how the judge should determine the validity of the expert witness. There are five guidelines which a judge can use to help guide their decision: 1. Has the technique been tested? 2. Has it been subjected to peer review and publication? 3. What is its known or potential error rate? 4. Are standards controlling the technique in place and maintained? 5. Is it generally accepted in the relevant scientific community? While not a rubric that must be followed to the 't,' Daubert's ruling provides a good starting point to consider when faced with expert testimony.