via Dave Barry, of course.
He also points out this online "productivity enhancer". I can never decide if I want to win or not.
Danny the Wrench kicks *ss in his Dubuque theater debut. Go Danny! Though we still wish you both were here doing theater. We miss you guys!
Last week, Doug from Iowa Geek linked to "The Brainteaser that Changed My World." I get the premise of the post - learning to be flexible and logical in your reasoning can be a positive thing. But, presuming the author is correct on this, I still can't figure out the stupid brainteaser. I'm usually pretty good with logic problems, and I'm too stubborn to just settle for "because it works that way" without knowing why and how. My only consolation is that this has apparently stumped more mathematically-oriented people than me. Anyone who's into logic problems, please go and see if you can explain this to me. I'll give my thoughts to date, and where I'm stuck, in the comments.
Daily Kos posts on another copyright fiasco, this time involving the classic documentary "Eyes on the Prize." This article in the Washinton Post outlines the story:
The series is no longer available in stores and can't be shown on television or released on DVD until the filmmakers are able to renew the expired rights to footage, photos and music that were used. Old sets of VHS tapes owned by community centers and schools are wearing out. Teachers and librarians seeking new copies can't purchase them, except for rare ones being sold on eBay for as much as $1,500.
The film is hampered by the same problem many documentary filmmakers are encountering as they wrestle with buying and renewing licenses to use copyrighted archival footage, photos and music. Independent filmmakers must pay for each piece of copyrighted material, and those costs have escalated in the past 10 years.
Thanks, Disney.
I refrained from posting on this story, indicating that Iraqi insurgents had captured an American soldier and were threatening to behead him. The photo was just too wierd. Daily Kos reports it's likely a hoax. From MSNBC:
The figure in the photo appeared stiff and expressionless. Liam Cusack, of the toy manufacturer Dragon Models USA, inc., said the image of the soldier portrayed in the photo bore a striking resemblance to a military action figure made by the company.
It looks like it is the doll. If that's the case, will it be the first photoshop insurgent hoax?
UPDATE: From Indepundit: GI Joe taken hostage.
UPDATE UPDATE: Okay, this is too funny.
How Appealing links to this Law.com article: 9th Circuit: No Forcing Therapy on Sex Offender. Okay, this is bad news. I'd argue it's not only bad for the State, it's bad for the offender. Sex offenders are notoriously difficult to treat. Half the time they don't even want to admit they have a problem, much less deal with it. Making treatment a condition of parole or probation is about the only thing we have to fight the high recidivism rates. Although it is axiomatic that the abuser won't change until ready to do so, it is often the process of going through this type of therapy that acts as a catalyst to seek change for those who will eventually be willing to cooperate with the treatment, by forcing them to recognize the ramifications of their behavior. Yet, as the article points out, I can see how sex offenders might be less than candid about their history of abuse if they knew any information they shared would be promptly turned over to prosecutors for new charges to be filed. So now what? We're supposed to send them back out on the streets with "have a nice life?" That doesn't help anyone. Obviously, the solution suggested by the article is to treat any information gathered through sex offender therapy regarding past crimes as a confidential part of the therapy. It fosters the trust needed to undergo the therapy process, yet doesn't provide immunity for new crimes committed post-conviction. It's a good compromise, and one I'd suggest be adopted.
How Appealing also points out this USA today article about legal urban legends like the person who supposedly won damages after being injured while using a lawnmower as a hedge trimmer. It argues that these myths form the impetus for the tort reform movement. The problem is that there are enough ridiculous cases out there without needing to stoop to using urban legends.
Notes from the Legal Underground muses on why people don't like lawyers and early experiences with computers. I first used a computer when I was five or so, in the early 1970's. My dad had a linkup to some computer or another from his work. Maybe he can fill in the details? What I remember is sitting on his lap playing hangman while he explained to me that the machine I was playing was actually a computer somewhere that was big enough to fill a whole room. I was totally impressed. Particularly when I won. I'm grateful I was young enough to absorb the idea of computers and video games while I was a kid. I think that's why I've never been afraid of the things, unlike many people who are smarter than me but never used one until they invaded the workplace in the '90s.
Too true.
More evidence Burt is evil from Instapundit.
He also has the expose on the CIA contributing to the delinquency of miners.
Update on Pierre Pierce: Apparently they're looking at sexual assault charges. The DI has more.
Matthew Yglesias has a detailed post about the economy of the future.
Professor Yin responds to the Des Moines Register article about the University of Iowa Law School legal clinic taking on cases for people who make six figures. He also responds to the p*ssy email co-blogger Kevin Heller got regarding blogging on "company time."
No comments:
Post a Comment