|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 08:06 PM EDT |
The lawyers may be good communicators. But their understanding probably isn't
all that great. Furthermore explanation is not their objective. They are trying
to sell a particular viewpoint. Indeed one may be motivated to obscure the truth
rather than elucidate it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: complex_number on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 03:13 AM EDT |
Get them to explain in simple terms what a 'Characteristic Equation' is. (ie in
terms that a Jury can understand)
Then watch someone skilled in teaching Control Engineering take their reasoning
and explanation apart.
I'd buy tickets for that one...
(see my username to understand why)
Lawyers brains are wired up in a very different manner from that of Scientists
and Engineers. Very few Lawyers have an anywhere decent understanding of Science
and Engineering.
Seriously, there has to be a better way of getting the sort of complex detail of
this case before the Jury than only upon Lawyer Questioning. Very few of that
Jury will understand even 50% of what in technical terms is being talked about.
Some people talk about a bench trial but you have to ask the same question of
the Judges. Do they really understand the minute detail that is being presented?
---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
