As I have discussed on numerous occasions in this blog, the growth and availability of television and other digital media downloading is staggeringly high. In response to piracy concerns, the networks have begun putting some of their shows online. I'm sure the reasons they put some and not all have to do with negotiations gone bad or in the works, but why focus your efforts just on your new shows and not all of them?
For example, Smallville is the only CW show that isn't on their full episode website (which doesn't work half the time anyway); as such, a rational person may still turn to a torrent to watch an episode he or she missed. The same goes for the Office or Medium on NBC's Rewind, to name two on NBC's network. Even Fox has turned to putting their shows online through MySpace (leaving out, of course, The Simpsons).
To deter piracy more effectively (setting aside the fair use argument for the moment), these networks need to get on the ball and push for all of their current shows to be on their respective official websites (for some period of time, either a month or a whole season). I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult to understand.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
NBC 2-minute rewind - worthless
Friday, January 26, 2007
Another reason why email gets you in trouble
Over the last ten or so years, my love for email has gone from intrigue to infatuation to inconvenience and now it borders on disdain. Don't get me wrong, email serves its purposes, but more and more the ease of email simply leaves the door open for misinterpretion and confusion. I can only speculate as to how many emails, even written in good faith, contain such ambiguous language that reasonable minds may differ as to what the writer meant. Either way, email can get people in a lot of trouble.
Take this recent example from a college admissions office posted this afternoon on CNN.com: UNC Congratulates 2,700 Prospective Freshman in Error. Now, maybe these people have already been "unofficially" accepted by their various committee, but if not, I think it's safe to say this mistaken offer could cause prospective students some doubts. It's easy enough to unring this bell, but see how email can get someone in a lot of trouble?
Read more!
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Middle-agers considering law school advice
In response to a previous entry about things to consider when thinking of applying to law school, one reader has asked me this question:
Really, I have a question...what do you think of middle aged people going to law school as a "new career" kind of thing? My answer follows.
I have worked with several people who have chosen law a second career. As I suggested in my previous entry, it really is a case by case basis and personal decision as to whether it is right for you. Nevertheless, here are a few things to consider which I may not have elaborated on enough earlier.
Most of the people I know who have chosen law as a second career (meaning they have passed the bar and are (or will be) gainfully employed as an attorney), are much older than the average entering student (which is 23 or 24). Their kids are either out of high school or very soon will be. Costs (the legal education and any money contributed toward a child’s education) have to be the biggest consideration. Like anything else, however, loans are available, so costs should be considered, but should not necessarily be a deterrent. For purposes of this entry, I will assume that as a “new career,” costs are an issue, but not nearly as much of an issue as they would be if you were coming out of college. To consider costs fully, consult with your accountant or financial adviser.
To save costs, you may consider a part-time or evening law program at an accredited school. I know many who graduated from these programs and went on to pass their respective bars. Most of these part-time students also had their companies pay for school, so obviously there lies a commitment beyond law school and that is another personal decision.
Beyond costs, the commitment to law itself is equally a strong factor, if not nearly as strong. Professional school is not like college, and those who treat it like college tend to figure out when the grades come out the first time that it is very different. If you decide to go to law school (full or part time), know that a significant amount of your free time over the next three or four years will be devoted to learning the law. The bar exam (after graduation) also requires a strong commitment (although I do know people who worked and studied and still passed).
As far as how a middle-aged student would fit into the law school scene, it is what you make of it. I work with students who are close to my age (20s), and I work with students who are twice my age (or close to it), and I think there is something to be said about how someone with years of experience can contribute to a course program. On the other hand, I have also noticed that some of the older members of a class also tend to talk about meaningless or inapplicable things and think they are right by virtue of being older. As a result, I recommend taking a couple of slices of humble pie and checking your hearing aid before embarking into a law school program. The ability to listen may be the most underappreciated asset in law. The rest of the law school opportunities (law review, moot court, etc.) are available for you just the same as whether you were right out of school three months before or when television was still in black and white.
One thing I would recommend considering concerns the job opportunities that exist for older members as opposed to younger ones. I know of some older students who have gone on to work for big firms, and they do fine. Despite these outliers, the majority of big firms tend to hire younger people, so you need to work doubly hard to show that you aren’t set in your ways and are still a marketable employee. I would imagine law is no different from any other job in that sense.
It seems to me (and I have no basis for this other than my personal observations), that most people embarking on a legal career as a second career tend to get into the public sector. The hours are better and the pension and benefits are more in line to what they expect or need. The salary may or may not be close to what you would make in the private sector, but it’s a good job, which many younger attorneys do not realize until they have spent one or two years in the corporate machine which comprises much of the private sector. To each his (or her) own. Obviously debt (and grades) play a crucial factor into this decision as well.
Of course, I limit my suggestions to jobs to the public and private sector. Law opens up many more doors than that, and you should work with the career services program at your school (if it’s any good) or use resources in the library or your local bookstore or internet to determine the possibilities. Having one career helps in that you know what you like and what you do not; having a law degree helps to focus what you like into a more specialized area. Personally and professionally, it is for some and not for others. You need to seriously consider what you want to do with your life and see if law opens up those doors.
The only other advice I would give is to reevaluate your goals after both your first and second semester. Talk with your support system (usually your spouse) and make sure to keep your priorities (family) straight. Law isn’t for everyone, and as a middle-aged student, I would hope you would have enough sense to cut your losses if you find yourself in this situation. At the same time, many more people have learned to balance the world that is law, and have done so quite well.
Hopefully this free advice helps. It’s a good profession that you can’t truly appreciate until you’re a part of it. Good luck.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Clinton announces her bid for the oval office
Unsurprisingly, Hillary Clinton has announced her bid for the presidency in '08. Other than her name and general politics, I am probably as informed about her as the rest of the general public. Nevertheless, I don't think she will win (not that a woman could not lead this country), and my reasons are quite simple.
If she were to win, that would mean that two families will have run this country since 1988 (over twenty years by her second year in office) and have been at least in a position of power (meaning second in line) since 1980 (almost thirty years by her last year in office). It seems to me that we're still living in a democracy and not an oligopoly or pseudo-kingdom, which is what would effectively happen if she won. Timewise, you could make the argument that the Roosevelt family did the same thing, and I don't dispute that other than say it's a different time with different amendments. I can't be the only person who's thought of this potential concern, and consequently, I would think a general discomfort with this idea will play into the minds of many voters. Or not, we'll just have to see how the media backs her.
Read more!
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Wikipedia bluebook cite
Hopefully if someone does a search for bluebooking wikipedia or how to cite wikipedia, they will no longer come up short since I have done the work for you.
Citing an article from Wikipedia, based on how the majority of the top law journals are doing it, generally appears to follow the rules of 18.2.3(e) of the Bluebook:
Wikipedia, Article Name (italicized), website address (last visited date). [regular roman font, no small caps]
The majority of journals in the last year have used this cite format, including NYU, Vanderbilt, Southern Cal, Loyola LA, University of Florida, Loyola Chicago, Harvard, California, Michigan, and BU to name a few. A few other journals use an alteration which appears to follow 18.2.3(b)'s example of putting the article first and changing the typeface, but I disagree and rather than pay that incorrect method any more lip service, I submit that the above way is the correct way to cite to a Wikipedia entry. If I find I am wrong, I will gladly correct my entry.
On a side note, it would not be cited "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" as a couple journals have done, nor is the date the date that appears on the Wikipedia site rather than the last date visited. See Rule 18.2.3(e).
Friday, January 19, 2007
Mediation
As part of my third year, I get to work for a judge two or three times a week (which operates for all intent and purposes as an clerkship minus the salary and prestige of being called a clerk). When I'm in court, I get to do any number of things the judge throws my way. This usually involves legal research and writing as you would expect. Put another way, it's everything you would expect in a typical show about clerkships (or Supreme Courtships, if you will). Very glamorous stuff. Makes for good tv.
Every so often, as I did the other day, I get to sit in on a mediation, which is sort of like an arbitration but it's with a judge instead of a lawyer. Essentially what happens is that both sides meet in front of a neutral mediator (the judge), each present their side of why they should win if the matter were to continue to appeal or be brought in a suit, and over the course of hours, they reach some sort of middle ground. Usually no side is happy with the result, but that's the nature of mediation. It certainly is a cost-effective way of solving things and I'm surprised more parties don't exercise this option.
Obviously I can't go into any detail of what this mediation was about, but I will say that at one point the sides were bickering over the difference of a few thousand dollars, which may or may not have been relative to the bottom line number each side actually settled for in the end. While these final dollar amounts usually represent what I now call a "pride factor," I find it amusing how much pride still counts even after hours of arguing/negotiating and many more thousands of dollars in legal fees. Maybe at a certain point they ought to just paper, rock, scissors for the difference or, even better, just agree to give it to the clerk. The latter option works for me just fine.
Read more!
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
24 Hours 3 & 4 comment
My interest in 24 after watching the season premiere on Sunday left me (as I stated in a previous entry) less then enthusiastic about the rest of the season. As a result, I watched 24 in the background of my weekly poker game. From what I saw, I highly doubt I will bother to continue watching it unless I really have nothing better to do.
Two thoughts: First, why would you negotiate with terrorists? At least the wife did something sensible and called the police (setting aside the fact she could have poisoned Ahmed (or Kumar, as he is better known, or Taj) earlier and he probably would not have been the wiser). The father, faced with a Sophie's Choice of sorts, decides to deliver the mysterious package for the terrorists. Good one pops. And then the bomb goes off.
Second, I believe Jack was only about a half hour away from the bomb. I've never been near a nuclear explosion, and I suspect size has something to do with it, but given what he saw and his distance (probably 20 miles), wouldn't he still have to fear some sort of immediate radiation poisoning? I would imagine California would be in pretty big trouble. Oh well.
For these two reasons, I conclude that 24 has continued off the deep end of reality (setting aside where it was to begin with) and I cannot justify spending my valuable time watching it anymore. I will remain continually surprised that last season (and presumably this season) receive such rave reviews.
P.S. I would have liked to see Ahmed's friend's reaction to Ahmed telling him that he had pronounced his name wrong all this time to be something along the lines of, "Dude, if I was saying it wrong all this time, why didn't you correct me? A little notice and I would have fixed it. No need to point a gun at me." Then a shoulder shrug. Is that too much to ask?
Read more!
Sunday, January 14, 2007
24 Season 6 premiere quick review
My gut reaction to 24's 2-hour premiere is to watch something else.
Background on my 24 viewing experiences: 24's Seasons 2 (nuclear weapon) and 4 (bioweapon) were the best seasons of 24 and 3 and 5 were the worst (1 has its moments, which thankfully picked up about halfway through the season). Season 3 was so bad I didn't watch season 4 until I happened to catch it in A&E's two-day marathon while I was sick. As a result (of perhaps my illness), I concluded that season 4 was the best season ever, and thus I had high hopes for season 5 when it premiered. I tried to enjoy season 5 and watched it in its entirety, but I was let down tremendously. Therein lies my reluctance to watch season 6. Of course, after watching New England upset the Chargers and ironically, because I am sick again, I figured I would give 24 yet another shot, contingent on some sort of jam-packed shoot-em up action for two straight hours. Although it had its moments, this was not the case. I think the movie The Sentinel had more plot than 24's season premiere has developed. And I didn't think The Sentinel was that great.
Some commentary on the premiere: The effects of two-years in a Chinese prison shows that Jack has lost some of his edge. The Silence of the Lambs-esque scene at the end of the first hour was something I don't think has been on television, but I suppose they are trying to show the effects of his capture as a sort of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest sort of thing. I'm not sure why the President's sister interfered so much into the FBI investigation, but I'm sure it will be developed eventually. For now, I will assume she is the Roger Clinton of the Palmer family. Also, what was the deal with it being 5 minutes short? My clock is right; theirs was not.
Conclusion: Two more hours tomorrow (maybe) and that's it. Unfortunately or fortunately for me, The Drudge Report's front page flashed a spoiler about 24 that the show will once again have a nuclear element to it. For me, that plot has been told already in season 2 and the series (after perhaps sitting through it tomorrow) may be put on hold for another year to see if they come up with a better idea for season 7. If I hear good things about it, maybe I'll tune back in. If not, there is always Heroes (which isn't much better but at least it's not a rehashing of a previous season of the same show).
One semester of Westlaw Trivia to go
I commented once before on Westlaw & Lexis's various ploys to get you "hooked" onto their systems. I suspect that by your second semester first year, you pretty much have a preference one way or the other and tend to gravitate toward that one the rest of your career. Regardless, the spring semester always seems to be less flashy as far as what you can win as opposed to the fall.
For example, this semester's Westlaw trivia has only 50 questions. Each is worth 15 points, so the max you can win is 750 points (which Westlaw states is about $12.75). For logging in 5 days a week, you can earn 50 points a week, which over the course of five months can give you a thousand points or so. For 1750 points, you can't even get a DVD from Westlaw. Now, obviously they have gimmicks throughout the semester that can get you more points, but it is safe to say that if you were saving up your points for an ipod, you may be better off just ordering it from Amazon.
Lexis's points gimmick this semester isn’t much better, but you can certainly earn more than 1750 points. Their passport game is a little stinger with its points, but if you were to fulfill all of its requirements and play “fact or fiction” every day, you can earn over 5200 points. Granted, this doesn’t get you much more than a few songs on itunes, but at least they are trying to grab a larger share of the market in more innovative ways than Westlaw.
Of course, if Westlaw partnered up with Google somehow, there would be no stopping them. The flip side is that there would probably be a lot more clever pro se arguments. Or not.
If either Westlaw or Lexis wanted to sponsor this entry for say, a semester's worth of tuition, I will gladly endorse one over the other. I may even wear a shirt that says "I heart (insert service here)."
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Supreme Courtships show on Fox
I saw the other day that Fox has greenlighted a show called Supreme Courtships, which aims to be a show about U.S. Supreme Court clerks. This show, as I describe it below, will be a disaster, but I will certainly watch at least the first episode to see if my prediction is right or wrong.
According to Variety, "'Supreme Courtships' revolves around the professional and personal world of six Supreme Court clerks." This vague description reeks of a drama, so the first thing I thought of was Grey's Anatomy, but in an office. But not an office like in The Office, this one will take place in a law office, which is much more fun.
First, who wants to watch about a bunch of recent law grads, who are a year or two away from getting a $200 thousand signing bonus, talking about how Thomas likes his coffee or about how the claim construction of a gas pedal patent is obviously similar to one of another company's which didn't have an electronic sensor. Will this be the kind of Gobbledegook that will attempt to endear us each week? Let me guess, one of the story lines will be about abortion. And another will be about the war powers. Why not just scrap this idea and get some "activist" judge to hire his clerks in a contest like Donald Trump? I'm sure it will go over as well as the law firm apprentice-type show that never seemed to hit the television airwaves. Or better yet, let's make a tv show about garbage men (but not like the movie).
Second, the U.S. Supreme Court only hear arguments sporatically as it is, the majority of which the general 18-49 demographic Fox would be targeting with this show would find very uninteresting. Further, most of the show would show their clerks sitting in front of a computer most of the day. Somehow I doubt they have instant messenger installed on their government-owned computer. I wonder if Westlaw or Lexis will sponsor the show. Probably Westlaw.
If you're thinking the Court hears fun cases about former Playboy bunnies, think again. The Anna Nicole Smith case was more about choice of law then anything else. This isn't glued-to-your-seat entertainment people, even if in the off chance it deals with a so-called celebrity. Think about watching someone studying for a test and ask yourself why are you watching someone do this? Now flip the channel.
The humor level among law clerks (and law students to some degree) is very intelligent (aka, nerdy) humor, which I submit would also be lost on most people watching tv. There are enough bad law shows on tv which have value at the margins. I can only hope some exec at Fox comes across this entry and has the good sense to make sure that "Supreme Courtships" is a comedy like Scrubs (and, more likely, Frasier) and not a drama like Grey's Anatomy.
While I think that a comedy has much more tremendous potential for a show like this, I still think it should just be about regular law clerks (or first year associates I suppose) rather than focus on any one court. That may necessitate a name change to the show. Just call it Clerks - you'll confuse people into thinking it's a Kevin Smith movie. In either case, the show will be non-stop jam-packed entertainment. I can only imagine the Nyles-type Supreme Court clerks they have as consultants with this show. Wait, they can't find some recently graduated U.S. Supreme Court clerks that want to help provide some behind-the-scenes insight? Get out of here.
Then again, maybe a show about law clerks will make the position so cool that some chick at a bar would be like, "You're a law clerk? Sweeeet." Only in Fox's world.
Read about it here:
Variety writeup
Tvsquad review
Peter Jackson suing for an accounting
I see from CNN that Peter Jackson, director of the Lord of the Rings trilogy and King Kong is suing New Line Cinema to ensure he got everything he is entitled to under his contract. Exec: Peter Jackson will never work for me again. Now, I'm for the American Dream as much as the next guy and fully support enforcement of valid contracts and clarification of improper accountings. What gets at me is the bottom line number involved in this particular fact patter. After your first million or two in the bank for your personal wealth, how much purpose does an accounting really serve? I recognize that this logic falls apart at the lower ends, and in most business cases where shareholders do the same thing, but I also argue that in a personal situation like this one, the facts are entirely differeent.
First, at some point, you're never going to spend this amount of money. Ever. You're not Coke. You're not the DOD or DOJ or any other agency. You're just rich. If Warren Buffett can't spend his billions in his lifetime, see Warren Buffett gives away his fortune, I can't imagine anyone doing the same. Fox should come up with a game show just to see if someone can spend a million dollars in a week (not including real estate purchases or cars or yachts). If you've ever seen the movie Brewster's Millions, you should have some idea of where I'm going with this.
Now, maybe it's a matter of principal on Jackson's part, and that may be another thing all together. But really, why not just let bygones go on this one and just negotiate a much shrewder contract in the future? How much money do you really need to live on to live comfortably? The majority of this country is managing every day on much less and put their pants or skirts on in the morning the same way as the next person. Maybe if I had millions upon millions I would think differently. More likely, however, I would probably be just like the rest of the filthy rich in this country and be quite charitable (tax incentives aside).
Bottom line - after your first $25 million in the bank, I think anyone can safely say they should be living quite comfortably. I'm not sure why Peter Jackson feels differently to the point that he needs to bring suit, but I'm sure his lawyers aren't complaining.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Recut movies: these things are great
Recut movies - I think these things have been around for a couple years now, but everytime I see one, I just crack up. I can't seem to find how they are doing them though - probably some sort of mac video editing program, but the net searches are fairly useless. Nonetheless, there are some funny ones. Now, if only they would come up with a recut for Full Metal Jacket as a light-hearted comedy and the "Flying Dreams" from The Secret of Nihm or something from Stand by Me in the background. If I find a recut of Full Metal Jacket, I'll post the link if I remember to do so.
Here were some that Rolling Stone found humorous: Rolling Stone Top Re-cut Movie Trailers of 2006. Wikipedia gives the definitive list with links.
College Humor, Gorilla Mask, and I'm sure YouTube have plenty more.
Priceless. Now if only a movie studio would create two diametrically opposed alternate trailers for a forthcoming movie and let the audience stew over which one is the real one. Could have interesting results.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
New year, new semester
After being with only limited internet access for the past month, I figured I would write a quick entry about various entries that have been accumulating over the past couple of weeks.
In no particular order:
1. The Good Shepherd: I saw this over my break - it's about 2 hours and 40 minutes long, not counting previews. I wouldn't say this is worth seeing in the theater since it isn't a very action intense movie (as opposed to Die Hard Part IV: Live Free or Die Hard may be), but it is a good movie that I probably would not have sat through otherwise. It is very confusing in parts though and if you blink, you may lose the timeline. Moral of the movie: When you work in espionage, trust is a concept you learn to live without.
2. New Years: For whatever reason, I was watching the ball drop on tv at a bar for New Years 2007. Unlike Tara Reid, who apparently never played hide and seek to learn how to count backwards, Fox simply made the countdown disappear with 20 seconds left. Luckily the DJ kept the countdown going. I woke up alone on New Years Day, so that gives you an idea of how well my New Years night went.
3. Mad Cow Disease: As liberal as Boston Legal is, and as much as I can only watch it for the jokes and witty dialog rather than the blatantly left spin it spews out, it did pose an interesting question that I spent five minutes researching. Could alzheimer's disease and mad cow disease have something in common?
Boston Legal attempts to conflate the two into the same disease, which did appear to have some non-scientific backing, but a look into various science websites suggests only that the affliction caused by each could be treated by similar methods. See Mad cow, Alzheimer's proteins are similar - study. Part of me thinks there may be two separate strains of mad cow, one acting very quickly as evidenced by the cases in Britain and North America and perhaps another is much more silent. My scientific background or lack thereof, however, leads me to conclude that nobody is really sure and maybe the vegetarians have it right after all. Of course, you can't eat fish because of mercury and chicken because of the bird flu, so what can you do. I'll stick to my grill.
4. I've begun to waste some time on this Yahoo Answers thing. Although I welcome any forum that allows people to help each other out, there are many more bad questions that beg for a sarcastic response than good ones that would prove this site useful. When you post questions, it shows you other questions that may (and usually do) answer your question. Maybe if these questions were linked a little better to each other, or people would apply various search engines prior to turning to the Answers forum to get some free advice, or scroll down a little more, this site could develop into something much more of a resource. At the very least, it would be easier to separate the wheat from the chaff.
5. Let's go ahead and merge XM and Sirius. Whether it turns into a monopoly is an issue to test once everybody buys into the system or when it becomes so integrated into the society that price collusion or costs generally require government intervention. After all, comcast is still pretty much the dominant cable provider and nobody's stepped in to break them up yet. If they have survived this long, why have two satellite radios when one can perhaps make the concept work?
6. My dentist recently found and plugged a cavity. I feel like I let my mouth down.
7. Facebook is better than MySpace. I have looked at both and can state this to a reasonable certainty.
That's it. I'm sure there's more, but I have to enjoy the remains of my vacation.
