And smoothing her skirts!

"I'll buy that for a dollar."

I remember being approached by our auditors, who wanted to assess the company's readiness, for a significant fee. When I told them, "No thank you," they warned me that I could be held personally liable if problems arose. I responded that I knew more about the issue that they did, demonstrably so, and they could suck it.

A comment on NY Times article about this quipped, "Brittania waives the rules."

This clearly didn't happen in Iowa and New Hampshire. Turnout there for the primaries was quite low. Why do you continue to believe it will happen in other states?

This is a good time to mention Jeff Vogel at Spiderweb Software and his old school role-playing games.

Some of us idiots think that this whole current process, whereby prosecutors (who are answerable to no-one) control outcomes through plea deals, is a terrible perversion of justice because it completely short circuits due process.

Hawk, if you want to post under your username, you have to create a Slashdot account. Otherwise, you can only post as an anonymous coward.

I figured it had to be a reference to something, but I didn't know what. FWIW, this is one of the very few times in my life that I have been considered insufficiently nerdy.

Why would anyone choose to watch a show called 'Halt and Catch Fire' without additional information? The name isn't catchy or poetic, and doesn't convey any information concerning what the show is about.

I'm not trying to be unpleasant, but I did literally read more than a dozen articles, each one talking about a different event. I overstated my case when I said 'any medical examiner,' but my original statement was based on personal experience of local events (one in San Francisco and one in southern Utah, many years ago) where people died after being tazed, and the things I read while doing research at that time. The medical examiner in the little town privately said that it would be dangerous to his career to implicate Tazer in the death.

How tiresome. Citations are appropriate when making outlandish or extraordinary claims, but it is perfectly reasonable to know things without having recently read about them online. In this case, a simple Google search for 'Taser challenges medical examiners' turns up - in addition to the Reuters article mentioned in the original post - dozens of cases, from Canada, the UK, and the US, that support my assertion.

It's important to point out that the company has aggressively challenged any medical examiner who determines that a Taser killed someone or contributed to their death, in many cases suing to have the official cause of death changed. Therefore I am skeptical of the 153 figure.

I see this all the time. There is a Mercedes dealer in New Jersey that wants me to trade in my 2014 S-class. (I have never been to NJ and I don't own a Mercedes.) I get regular notices about a short-term loan taken out by someone in Tennessee, who has apparently never made a payment. And I get multiple messages every day from ADT Canada, letting me know when someone in Toronto arms or disarms his home security system.

The only company that handled this well was Netflix. I got an E-mail thanking me for signing up, followed almost immediately by a message from their tech support regarding problems signing in. That included a number which was answered in less than a minute when I called, and the rep apologized (with a smile) and fixed it immediately.

At the risk of sounding callous, if it costs $50K per dose to make a drug, it might be reasonable to state that no feasible treatment exists at this time. We perform cost/benefit analyses all the time, but not when it comes to health care. This is a difficult subject, but is seems to be a conversation we are not even capable of having at this time.