Careful what you wish for. With the current generation, you might end up with iWar instead.
I like to get these scammers on the line for as long as possible, but without wasting my time. So far, what I've seen to work well was "Oh, my computer just crashed, I need to reboot" and "Now windows is applying updates". This means they'll wait without me having to think of stuff to tell them. Any other effective tricks?
Pour vinegar into a bowl. Add a bit of liquid soap, to lower the surface tension. Place it next to the place where you have your fruit fly infestation and wait a day or two.
So apparently you CAN catch more (fruit) flies with vinegar than with honey?
As far as I can tell, there really wasn't a cover-up. It was mostly when Republicans got a hold of the story and tried to have someone's head for it that bureaucrats started to circle the wagons.
Wait, what? Are you seriously suggesting that it's not a coverup because the coverup didn't start until people started asking questions?
A meaningful distinction, but have you tried getting hired in Europe as an American? It's kind of intense. I'm still working on it.
(Still, certain it's far better than the other way around).
In my opinion the peer-review should be changed to a double-blind system: the reviewer should not see name and affiliation of the authors, and judge the work as it would grade an undergrad paper (i.e. harshly). Like this I believe the signal-to-noise ratio in journals would increase, and only good papers would get published.
Please no! The problem with this approach (and it's already happening) is that what will get published is boring papers that bring tiny improvements over the state of the art. They'll get accepted because the reviewers will find nothing wrong with the paper, not because there's much good in there. On the other hand, the really new and interesting stuff will inevitably be less rigorous and probably more controversial, so it's going to be rejected.
Personally, I'd rather have 5% great papers among 95% of crap, than 100% papers that are neither great, nor crap, but just uninteresting. Reviews need to move towards positive rating (how many thing are interesting), away from negative ratings (how many issues you find in the paper). But it's not happening any time soon and it's one of the reasons I've mostly stopped reviewing (too often overruled by the associate editor to be worth my time).
Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence.