Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (8261)	9/5/2001 11:42:04 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

Engineers deal with the real world which will come out the same whether they vote or not. Lawyers deal with human beings, some of whom are suffer from such delusion and confusion and misunderstanding that they believe that Globalstar is a good investment and Qualcomm will save humanity. Or perhaps they are so deluded as to keep asserting that the mass of a satellite doesn't affect its fuel consumption because Kepler's Third Law says that the mass of a satellite doesn't matter. With people like that, engineers can do nothing. Not that lawyers can do much, but at any rate, that's why lawyers handle cases where the outcome is far from certain. A decent lawyer tells the client that he/she can't win - but sometimes the client doesn't really expect to win, sometimes the client wants to delay matters until the situation is more convenient. I don't blame you for not understanding estoppel - it's a somewhat subtle concept. In a nutshell it means that once you have taken a position, and the other party has relied upon your position in good faith, you can't change it to the other party's detriment. Detriment means harm. The fun comes in defining "position," "party," "other party," "reliance," "good faith," "change," "detriment," and so forth. The kind of person who thinks he knows that when he sees it is usually the same kind of person who exclaims in modern art galleries that his young child or a chimpanzee could produce similar works. A predictable type, but delusional nonetheless.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (8261)	9/6/2001 5:30:13 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

In academia there are whole enclaves devoted to creating and promulgating their own unique jargon. A successfully erected edifice of jargon becomes a discipline. Careers are based on elaborating and building out the edifice. Journals are established to give the impression a body of knowledge exists somewhere behind the jargon. Ever higher barriers to entry are then erected to exclude ever larger numbers of the merely idly curious from discovering the secret truth behind all the jargon: that there is no truth, there is only jargon.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (8261)	9/6/2001 11:50:53 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

Maurice - On lawyers versus engineers... I suppose you would like to comment on why there are so many engineers "debugging" what invariably works out to merely the difference between 1 and 0 in a binary world? So many <more> engineers, I should say. One would expect that with such precisely defined outcomes it would be far far easier to get such stuff right the first, or second, or third, or fourth time... forget about not needing to vote. It's not like there are more than two choices. This compared to the nuances of the English language when they are applied to retrospectively identifying intent. I agree with you that lawyers cost. Particularly those who spend time obfuscating intent to make the retrospective process so much more difficult. But so does pressing CTRL-ALT-DEL. And I suspect that the cost of the latter outnumbers the former. And that nobody's adding up this cost in the hedonic productivity adjustment factors. At least to me, which is my time. By the way, I am a former scriber of ones and zeros, now merely a CTRL-ALT-DELeter, and not a lawyer. John.