Per usual, you are making the claim that open-source software is not inherently dangerous and does not compare to peer review. Per usual, you are wrong. Open-source software is no less dangerous than a scientific release of information such as the one mentioned in this article.
If one takes a piece of open-source software and designs a very nasty virus into it and releases it onto the web as a new version of a popular piece of software, they are inherently risking hundreds of thousands or millions of individual's computers, credit cards, bank accounts, and much more. This is akin to this release of scientific data that could be use to terrorize the population.
Scientific peer review is no different than using the knowledge base of each individual that works on an open-source project to develop a piece of software. Both processes use the knowledge, experience, and skills of a group of people to ensure that the data that is collected/used is pertinent, applicable, and correct. Both are a type of peer review process.
Before you go around saying others are wrong, maybe you should examine your own incorrect ideologies so that you don't make incorrect analogies and statements. You may disagree with Mr. Colbert - and you have that right - but going around spreading misinformation purposely to detract from Mr. Colbert's articles is morally reprehensible.
Keep Up with TechRepublic