Fat people use more soap...

I sat down on the toilet today and it did that little thing where the seat shifts to the left. If people ever wonder why that is, it is because somebody incredibly heavy sat down on it and broke the little hinge that holds it there. Now I don't mean to be mean, but they are probably fat people. I used to teach down the hall from this incredibly fat man (one of the nicest people I have ever known) and each time the seat was fixed, it would be broken within a day or two.

My girlfriend works at a plus-size catalog. They have an outlet store where people shop. It's actualy SUPER plus size. She said that they had to get special metal hinges on the toilets because they would always break.

We know Americans are getting fatter. The fact that they had to re-do the calculations for airplanes based upon the average weight of passengers is proof of that. Hell, I"M getting fatter.

A big, fat, Republican lie...

The Washington Post, being the liberal rag that it is points out that the campaign finance laws which Republican operatives have been commanded to claim was just passed are actually quite old.

"Using corporate funds for state election purposes has long been illegal in Texas, as it is in 17 other states." says the Post, but despite this simple fact, the talking points circulating around the net and here on blogcritics are getting repeated anyway.

I'm looking at a case here, Castillo v. State, 59 S.W.3d 357, in which a man was convicted in 2001 of violating Texas Election code 253.003. If, as it has been alleged, that the laws were enacted in 2002, then it's hard to explain this strange circumstance. The indictment cites Texas election codes 253.003, 253.094, and 253.104.

Furthermore 253.001 was Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 899, § 1, eff. Sept. 1,
1987; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1134, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

I'm pretty sure Delays' attorneys wouldn't make such completely baseless arguments unless there was at least some tenuous point with which to hammer away at. If anyone knows what it is, I would be interested to hear it. So far I haven't heard anyone who isn't TOTA.

Why word isn't ready for the law office

the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently announced that it will no longer tolerate legal briefs generated with Microsoft Word that skip footnotes and endnotes when counting words in a document. DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, No.s 99-1754 and 99-1769 (7th Cir. July 21, 1999).Why word isn't ready for the law office

Moot court report 1..and why Microsoft Word sucks..

here is an ode to word
"For reasons which are completely beyond my control, I've spent half a week writing a document in Word 98.

I have never in my life seen, heard of, or even imagined a more malodorous piece of steaming shit than this little slice of Microsoft. Words fail me, and all that follows is the faintest Platonist shadow-on- a-wall of what is, in my heart, the Ideal Peeve, perfect in its sincerity, bottomless in its depth, and unassailable in its accuracy.

This bloated, pestilent gigabyte-swamping piece of ordure takes up enough computational resources to accurately model the world's weather for the next billion years, and what do you get for it? Something that will format and display text? Don't make me fucking laugh. What you do get is a profusion of bells and whistles thrown in a careless heap, each bauble lovingly designed to make the straight path crooked, the intuitive arcane, the simple impossible.

Take the ``Help'' for example. It's not just help, it's a new friend!

I don't want a new friend, you shit-slurping choad-munching bunch of retards; I've all too many as it is. What I want is something simple where I can find a technical detail with a minimum of fuss and interruption. I don't want animation. I don't want natural-language interpretation. I don't want to be led by the fucking nose. Give me a fucking index and get the hell out of my damn face. If I dismiss a window, I want it gone. I don't want it to wave goodbye, or hesitate, or sneeze. I want it gone.

The document I was working on was very simple. No images, no tables, no nothing. One font, one style, that's it. It would be perfectly simple in other system, even earlier versions of Word, but, oh no, not in this latest magnum opus of the word processing world.

This helpless, hapless, hopeless, buggy piece of offal insisted on changing my fonts every couple of minutes for no reason. Random chunks of text, at random times. And bullet points, don't talk to me about fucking bullet points. It's a little known fact that in the bullet-point mode of Word 98 every single button on every single toolbar is the ``Fuck Me Over Now'' button. I've got bullet points going left, I've got 'em going right, and down and up, I've got 'em changing indentation, and style, you name it.

You'd think in 20 or so megabytes of RAM there'd be room for one scenario in which it doesn't actively do anything wrong, but for that you'll have to wait for Word 2023, which will have a user interface like a retarded version of ``I have no mouth, and I must scream.''

And don't try telling me that one need only configure the options to avoid these problems; I'm not a fucking moron. I quickly configured the preferences so as to minimize all this bullshit, at which point Word promptly changed them back. Lather, rinse, repeat. If you don't want fast saves, then fuck off, you're gunna have 'em. Don't want your grammar constantly corrected by some shitty little subprogram that doesn't know the first goddamn thing about grammar? Tough shit. Empty your wallet and move off to the side.

How did this come about? It can't be incompetence, at least not the usual mundane sort one is constantly immersed in simply by having to share a planet with a bunch of fucking primates. This is either some transcendent type of incompetence, or active malevolence.

My money's on malevolence. This software was obviously created by a company who's motto is ``We're Microsoft, and you, the customer, aren't worth fuck to us.'' It matters not one iota what their official motto is, watch the hands, not the mouth. Well, Microsoft, your time will come. It may not be Linux that does you in, it may not be the DoJ, it may not be this decade, but you're going to go the way of the dodo, and I for one will cavort naked on your grave, pissing effusively on your memory, and screaming, ``Animate this, you bastards!'' to the sky.

But in the here-and-now, I shall finish this document with the quiet dignity with which I have always comported myself, and then I shall un-install Word, and swear a terrible oath that I would rather daub dung on paper with a stick than write a document using a Microsoft product. "word sucksmicrosoft word sucks

Incompetent people

sfgate
I wonder if they are talking about me...
====================

Incompetent People Really Have No Clue, Studies Find
They're blind to own failings, others' skills

Erica Goode, New York Times

Tuesday, January 18, 2000


* Printable Version
* Email This Article

There are many incompetent people in the world. Dr. David A. Dunning is haunted by the fear that he might be one of them.

Dunning, a professor of psychology at Cornell, worries about this because, according to his research, most incompetent people do not know that they are incompetent.

On the contrary. People who do things badly, Dunning has found in studies conducted with a graduate student, Justin Kruger, are usually supremely confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact, than people who do things well.

``I began to think that there were probably lots of things that I was bad at, and I didn't know it,'' Dunning said.

One reason that the ignorant also tend to be the blissfully self-assured, the researchers believe, is that the skills required for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize competence.

The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly, they suggested in a paper appearing in the December issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

``Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it,'' wrote Kruger, now an assistant professor at the University of Illinois, and Dunning.

This deficiency in ``self-monitoring skills,'' the researchers said, helps explain the tendency of the humor-impaired to persist in telling jokes that are not funny, of day traders to repeatedly jump into the market -- and repeatedly lose out -- and of the politically clueless to continue holding forth at dinner parties on the fine points of campaign strategy.

In a series of studies, Kruger and Dunning tested their theory of incompetence. They found that subjects who scored in the lowest quartile on tests of logic, English grammar and humor were also the most likely to ``grossly overestimate'' how well they had performe

Blind spots and merging.

Look over your shoulder

When you get on to the highway, it is YOUR responsibility to watch out for traffic. YOU are the one merging, and the cars on the freeway have the right of way.

Here's what happens every morning. I'm driving down to Santa Rosa. Someone enters the freeway. The drive straight ahead, and if I'm lucky, they look into their mirror. In all my years of driving I can count the number of people who look over their shoulder with one hand. Simply put, people feel that they are well within their rights to cause a car accident when they get on the freeway. They are wrong.

There is a wierd sense of laziness and entitlement that allows people to act this way. They think the law protects them. They think it is someone else's problem if they almost cause a car accident. The fact is, that it isn't. Look over your shoulder. Look over your shoulder. Look over your shoulder.


It would seem like this is a great way to point out how yoga can save your life. As our health deteriorates, as we become fatter, lazier, less flexible, we stop doing things that prevent this from happening. We stop thinking and become less intelligent. We stop moving and then aren't able to move.

Movie Review: A History of Violence

A History of Violence with Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello depicts Mortenson as a cafe-owner in a podunk town living an average life (except for the fact that his wife is a smoking-hot lawyer) when, about to be killed by two murderers, he turns into a complete killing machine.

Ed Harris, in his role as villain, shows up after seeing Mortensen on TV, claiming that "Tom" (Mortensen) is "Joey" and that he knows him. Thus the drama is set for Bello and the kids to wonder who is the man they thought was their husband/father while he reacts to the threat of these strangers.

Stop reading now if you are afraid I might give something away. I would.


Anyway, there are some really fascinating moments in this movie. After Mortenson dispatches some bad guys, his son saves his life. He walks toward his son, his face spattered with blood and eerily looks at the kid, rather like a lizard looking at another lizard -- expressionless and cold. Then he hugs him. Weird.

The morality play is pretty clear; people can and do change from crazed killers to good, normal people. I don't know how often that is true, but it makes for some interesting drama. And one is left wondering how this plays out in a family that was once normal. I have read reviews that ridicule the movie as being contradictory; the message is that violence is wrong but Mortensons' capacity for violence saves the day. I'm not sure it is so easy to see in this movie. At the end, Mortenson is now an object of suspicion for the police, and his family, while accepting him, is pretty clearly not okay with gangster dad and his past. Violence may have saved their lives but taints the idyllic dream that we saw at the beginning of the movie. It reminded me of Eastwood's moment in Unforgiven, in which he says, to paraphrase, "Killing a man is a hell of thing. You take everything he has. Everything he wanted to be. All his hopes, his dreams, his fears."

ED/PUB:LM

More fine reading at Blogcritics.org. Scroll down to read comments on this story and/or add one of your own. Support Blogcritics.org by shopping at Amazon.com from this page.


Fist Stick Knife Gun/Geoffrey Canada
Posted by Wallace Francis on October 06, 2005 05:05 PM (See all posts by Wallace Francis)
Filed under: Video

Movie Review: A History of Violence

A History of Violence with Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello depicts Mortenson as a cafe-owner in a podunk town living an average life (except for the fact that his wife is a smoking-hot lawyer) when, about to be killed by two murderers, he turns into a complete killing machine.

Ed Harris, in his role as villain, shows up after seeing Mortensen on TV, claiming that "Tom" (Mortensen) is "Joey" and that he knows him. Thus the drama is set for Bello and the kids to wonder who is the man they thought was their husband/father while he reacts to the threat of these strangers.

Stop reading now if you are afraid I might give something away. I would.


Anyway, there are some really fascinating moments in this movie. After Mortenson dispatches some bad guys, his son saves his life. He walks toward his son, his face spattered with blood and eerily looks at the kid, rather like a lizard looking at another lizard -- expressionless and cold. Then he hugs him. Weird.

The morality play is pretty clear; people can and do change from crazed killers to good, normal people. I don't know how often that is true, but it makes for some interesting drama. And one is left wondering how this plays out in a family that was once normal. I have read reviews that ridicule the movie as being contradictory; the message is that violence is wrong but Mortensons' capacity for violence saves the day. I'm not sure it is so easy to see in this movie. At the end, Mortenson is now an object of suspicion for the police, and his family, while accepting him, is pretty clearly not okay with gangster dad and his past. Violence may have saved their lives but taints the idyllic dream that we saw at the beginning of the movie. It reminded me of Eastwood's moment in Unforgiven, in which he says, to paraphrase, "Killing a man is a hell of thing. You take everything he has. Everything he wanted to be. All his hopes, his dreams, his fears."

Unbelievable

For the first time in law school I have failed a course; moot court. The interesting thing is that this is a pass/fail course. It's not required at most schools, but because the school has won some awards against some top schools, beating the crap out of Boalt and Hastings, they decided to make it one.

It's one of those bizarre moments where you realize working hard sometimes just doesn't matter.

I spent weeks on my brief, sorting through contract law and reading case after case. He wrote "it looks like it was written the night before". There were actually people who did write it the night before. He couldn't tell the difference.

I read the review; he found 73 errors. The fatal mistake was that I confused arguments for legal arguments. Whatever that means. You weave the factual arguments and legal arguments together. Everybody knows that. My friend had me read his review; he found 76 errors and he confused arguments for legal arguments. He passed.

Not to mention the fact that I showed it to the TA (more on him later) and a former TA who was one of our moot court champions. She said it was fine, assuming I would fix the format errors. Of course, the fatal flaw obviously wasn't the format errors.

The TA works for the DA as a clerk. He has a reputation as a disaster. Rumor has it that at least one attorney won't let him near any of her cases, as he gave away the whole case in a simple 1538.5 reply. The clerks at the PD's office cannot believe the stuff he writes.

Inside my brief I read all of his bizarre comments; stylistic criticisms he calls errors. The teacher never bothered to check. I write "the contract not ambiguous", in argument. He writes "no it isn't! that's why we are here!" even though he was there when I talked to the instructor about how I should argue.

The conversation went like this; "I don't want to argue no ambiguity because it contradicts my argument". Instructor: no, you don't give anything up: you argue it isn't ambiguous and even if it is, it is still in your favor. The TA was sitting right there watching us. I am not making any of this up.

I look through my classmates briefs'; the same strange comments; he marks the words "shown" and crosses out "the case at bar" and other wierd things.

I originally asked him to look at my brief. He brought it back the next day, never bothered to read it. This was weeks before it was due. I had misgivings from the start, but the day he gave me a half-hour lecture on summary judgment was the straw. He babbled incoherently for almost half an hour straight. There are a certain number of law students, lawyers, people who in general are TOMA (talking out of my ass). People rely upon them. Some of them are quite successful. But if you listen carefully, you realize they don't actually understand a lot of the things they are talking about; yet they exude confidence. It's a very dangerous thing.

I thought of appealing it and realized it would be easier to just take the class over. The appeals process usually isn't resolved before the next semester ends, and it's for the most part a rubber-stamp committee composed of, guess who, lawyers who also teach at the school. My understanding is that you cannot show them other students tests to demonstrate the lack of objectivity. Besides, making the teacher look like an asshole while I'm in his class just doesn't seem smart.

I know what happened. Every now and then teachers make "examples" of certain students. It's hard to believe, but once in a while animosity for a class can develop into a vendetta, and I have the strange ability to attract this type of energy. It's difficult to explain. I'm polite, not a class asshole. I defer to the teacher. I do what I'm told. I was actually one of the people who defended the instructor, worked hard, practiced hard; if the intended effect was to get people to take him seriously it had the opposite effect. It proved he can't tell the difference between those who slack off and those who do not.

One of the great lessons here, which I already got from my summer internship, is that there are no shortage of incompetent people who are telling others they are incompetent.