Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment The timing is the key (Score 1) 282 282

A transcript doesn't show everything that's germane to this debate. There's also the issue of timing, as in the flow of the conversation; the cadence of the "back and forth".

It's one thing if the judge asks a question, he gives his first answer, and then she immediately moves onto the next juror. In that case, he would have to interrupt a judge sitting on the bench while she's talking. I can understand him keeping quiet; I don't think I'd have the balls to interrupt a judge in court.

It's a whole other thing if, after he describes his first lawsuit, he pauses (and pauses) without saying anything, inviting the judge to think he was done talking. It's hard to make the "he answered what was asked of him" argument when everyone is sitting there waiting for him to keep talking. In that case, you have to conclude that he has made a conscious decision to withhold the details about his Seagate lawsuit.

Unfortunately this is something that, without a video or audio feed, just can't be settled.

Comment Plagiarism is everywhere (Score 1) 64 64

Honestly, plagiarism is everywhere, even in mainstream academic press in the US. I've caught several papers that were heavily plagiarized that were submitted for peer review just using string searches on Google. (And that's not counting the SciGen stuff that still shows up from time to time.)

Comment Well that was 7 minutes I won't get back (Score 2) 156 156

Ugh. What a flaky, uninformed piece of drivel that was.

The author can think of himself as an artist all he wants to. Here's a newsflash: other "arts" have to do things responsibly, too.

His whole argument is like an architect blaming the bricks when his/her poorly designed building falls over.

Comment This is why people hate lawyers (Score 1) 667 667

A lot of lawyers use the law like a weapon -- a blunt club that they can use to intimidate and coerce, even when they're in the wrong. In case you are a lawyer and don't understand why people hate your job: this is exhibit A. (Obligatory IANAL.)

Comment Re:Politics of health care (Score 1) 1064 1064

OK - a couple of quick points.

A) We are not operating in a free market at the moment. At least not economically. In a free market AIG, Citi, and the other stupid companies are allowed to die and serve as examples of what *not* to do. That didn't happen here. (And, before anyone claims that the failure of Citi/AIG/whoever would have made the economy worse, I must point out the speculative nature of your argument.)

B) There is a very credible case to be made that, if the US embraces socialized medicine, our standing as the premier place for medical treatment will disappear. Ask yourself this - why do the premier specialists from all over the world settle in America? Why do so many doctors voluntarily leave India, China, Europe, Canada, etc. only to be halfway around the world from their families? It's because the financial rewards of practicing in the U.S. are so much greater than other countries.

Bus error -- please leave by the rear door.