Obviously people like me are likely in the minority, but I *hate* books on tape. I can't enjoy them at all, especially when I'm also operating a vehicle. I'm constantly missing bits here and there, and then having to rewind.

Since I hear suggestions like this all the time, I wish more people understood that for at least some of us, books on tape are not a good option.

First of all, what percent of academic writing includes typeset equations? A very small percentage.

Secondly, if I could get style files for the journals I publish in, I would seriously consider LaTeX. But since I can't, it's certainly not worth my time to learn. I've looked into it three separate times over the past 8 years, but its never been close to user-friendly enough for me.

And ps: while I don't do it for a career, I have coded many times. I'm not ignorant. I just know what I want to spend my time doing.

It's a great feature, but I can never get it to work properly unless all parties are using the exact same version of word. And unless it's a corporate environment where everyone is running the same software, this almost never happens.

This comes up in /. more than it ever does in real life. Overall, modern courts do not support this idea, and I wish it would stop being so prominent here. It's simply bad advice. It's a good way to get tossed off a jury, and that's about it.

Although I see the value is the final version, I personally find Ellison's version the more compelling. We *know* that Kirk is all about duty, and being right. The idea is that he falls so powerfully in love that it blinds him to that. Maybe for the first time, he is forced to reconsider where his devotion is placed, and whether it might be worth giving that up for something else.

You wouldn't want him giving it all up every week, but as a one time question of what he would do, I think it makes a great story.

Well, feel free to disregard my opinion, but I preferred Ellison's script.

That's beside the point, though, because if the contract specified that he would be paid residuals, then he should be paid residuals. If the parent corporation is going to continue to market and rake in money from the script that he is credited with, then they need to play by the rules they agreed to. These are the only ways to force companies to behave ethically.

A 15% discount over what they'd charge insurance? That's completely the opposite of my experience. I went without insurance for a few years, and I discovered that the rates charged to individuals were *much* higher than the rates they charged large insurance plans. The large group plans were given volume discounts. I found this out too late to take advantage of it while I was without employer-based insurance, but many groups recommend having any insurance, regardless of how crappy the coverage is, just to get the group savings.

It's not true that 'Doctors Hate Science', but it *is* true that doctors aren't scientists. They're practitioners. That's a point that routinely forgotten.

I agree that money is not the only motivator, but you're leaving out some key issues:

Doctors in general acquire far more debt during their schooling, and therefore expect to make more to repay it. It's a reinforcing cycle.

PhDs in general are aiming for tenure. While lengthy discussions can and have been had about tenure, the fact is that it's a huge lure that doctors don't have.

Wait, you think $14/month for the Sunday Times is pricey? Do you live in Manhattan? I lived in NJ 6 years ago and the Sunday NYT was selling for $4-6. That's more than the $14 you claim per month.

Frankly, if I still lived in the area I would have a daily subscription. I'd be proud to support the NYT, given its quality.

will you pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease stop using "scientist"?

Someone who does research according to the scientific method and publishes their work in a peer-reviewed journal is a scientist. Who are you dismissing by your use of quotations? If there are people who are journalists or proselytizers but are claiming to be scientists, let's expose them directly.

So the companies that make record profits and then reduce their workforce the next quarter to meet analysts' expectations to keep their stock value high....is that the right thing, too?

Keeping a company afloat or with better margins is not always in the interest of the workforce. Employees that were let go 10 years ago don't care if the company would have collapsed in 6 years.

It has to be a balance