And there are no robots.

Warning: Spoilers for the endgame phase of a "room escape" game that, frankly, could do with some spoiling:

( How to make a handy device that would totally work to get things you can't reach behind the furniture: )

These games are a little too abstract sometimes.

So I just found a giant ODB Bug crawling around on my bed, right before I was supposed to go to sleep.

I put a glass over it and took it outside, but I have to ask: How worried should I be that there will be more of them?

Take note, everyone:

The Oregon Senate has (finally) passed a bill that prohibits talking on a cell phone while driving. The bill contains a number of exceptions that limit its usefulness, including one for hands-free headsets - which may not be well-advised, as these are devices are not safe to use while driving either - but it's better than what we had before, which was nothing.

The bill passed narrowly, with almost all Democrats voting in favor and almost all Republicans voting against. Explaining his opposition, Senator Jeff Kruse (R-Roseburg) argued that "This is more nanny state" [sic] and "let's leave the people of Oregon alone for God's sake!" Senator Kruse went on to say, "To single out cell phones as the only bad thing [we] do when driving is absurd. My wife puts on makeup while driving... tell me that's safe." (Citation in above link.)

I'm not sure I follow the logic of this argument. On one level, it suggests that Senator Kruse believes that, if we can't stop people from doing everything that endangers themselves and others, we shouldn't stop them from doing anything that endangers themselves and others, regardless of degree. And on another level, the Senator has admitted that his wife drives dangerously and is a danger to public safety. There's a winning argument for listening to the guy about safety legislation.

Anyway, it's the law. Hang up and drive.

The ABA Family Law section is putting out a new CLE on the differences in professional ethics rules between Canadian and American attorneys working in family law cases. The class is called "Us and Them, Eh?"

Of course, these are also the guys who thought it would be funny to call a forensic accounting course "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Assets."

• Two young ladies naked but for their underwear, backpacks, and giant paper-maiche' wolf heads on over their helmets.
• One guy, naked but with a full-sized, hominid-shaped dummy with a gorilla mask for a head, strapped to his back.
• One couple, naked and covered entirely in silver paint. It was very effective - they seemed to have hit every nook and cranny. One hopes it's not something that would cause irritation.
• A lot of people with improvised body paint saying things like 'VEGAN,' 'ONE LESS CAR,' or 'NO ON LOCAL' (what?)
• At least one very young boy, no older than ten or so, also naked and biked. I was a bit disturbed by that - I mean, it's good that kids should learn that the naked human body is not something to be ashamed of, but I mainly worry about how hysterical Teh Authoritiez (i.e., me, or the people I work with) can be about anything approaching the introduction of sexuality to children. Is there any precedent for a kid's parent getting into trouble for something like that?
• Lots of drums. What is it with the drums, Portland? I don't dislike them, I'm just asking.
• A few other people who were clothed. And only one guy who gave me shit for being so.
• Nobody I knew, alas. That would have made it much more interesting. As it was, I felt alone in a crowd. This often happens when I'm in crowds. People would start to cheer, and the cheer would be taken up by an increasing perimeter - people wouldn't seem to know what they were cheering, they'd just do it because others were. I've never been able to do that. Maybe I'm missing out.

More interesting than all the naked people (not that that's not interesting, you know; it just seems bad to focus on that...) was riding in such a large crowd, being able to own the road without fear of cars. We could do with more of that.

This came after a day that involved walking up to OHSU, intending to take the tram back down - it's free to go down, but very expensive to go up - only to find it doesn't run on Saturdays or after 5 or something, and walking all the way back down again. And then walking through the Pride Parade, which involved a lot of the same issues, and maybe some of the same people, as the bike ride. I am now tired. And my house smells like paint. Flop.

Apparently this is not a joke.

Someone has invented a "study ball:" a 20-pound ball and chain - you know, the eponymous shackle of ancient prisons, which was in fact used only as a punishment even within a prison - with a manacle controlled by a timer. The idea is to attach this to your child's leg, to compel them to study more effectively without distractions. The manacle only releases when the timer runs out. For "safety reasons," the timer is limited to four hours.

I hope everyone reading this realizes that putting such an item on anyone, especially a child, without their consent, would be a crime. (Specifically, ORS 163.195, reckless endangerment; also various child abuse related issues if the person is under 18. One might also be able to make a case for false imprisonment, if the person really is totally unable to move.) The danger posed is enormous: What if a fire were to break out? What if the child needs to go to the bathroom, for that matter? (For that matter, what does it say to a child, to equate homework with punishment and imprisonment? And whatever happened to helping your kid with their homework?)

So I assume the whole thing is just a gag, but you never know for sure.

To whoever stole the lights off my bike while it was locked up outside the art museum this evening:

... you suck. What else can I say?

Washington D.C. personal injury lawyer Charles Schulze, age 73, died last week after saving the lives of two drowning boys by jumping into the ocean and swimming them to safety.

No dream of heaven could be great enough reward for this. I can only pray that my own life, and death, may be half so good.

Ok, I'm as much of a hypochondriac as anyone, but this is just ridiculous:

Various conservative radio talk show hosts and other pundits have been saying, without any apparent basis in fact, that illegal immigrants are responsible for the introduction of swine flu (or, as Michael Savage called it, "human swine avian flu") into the United States, possibly in concert with Muslim extremist groups as a terrorist attack. Not that this is surprising. Conservative radio talk show hosts blame illegal immigrants and Muslim extremists for everything from the depression recession to global warming (or would, if they believed in the recession or global warming).

What's really depressing is that the news today reported not one, but two cases of schools prohibiting handshakes at sporting events and graduations, to prevent the risk of flu infection. Life imitates satire.

Just to put this in context, to date at the time of this writing, seventeen people have died from this flu. According to ABC News, the average time that these patients waited before going to see a doctor (among Mexican patients) was seven days; those who became ill but recovered waited an average of three days. Going to a doctor if you get sick appears to substantially increases your chance of survival. Still not surprising.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Church continues to prohibit the use of condoms and tells people in AIDS-ravaged African nations that they can make the problem worse. Still like a dystopian nightmare.

Something rather weird just happened.

I was working in my office when someone rang my bell. I went out and found a car in our parking space, and two people at the front door. (This is a little strange because there's a sign on the front door that directs people to the side door for my office.) They were young, in their 20s: one was a tall blond woman in a blue dress and high-heeled black boots, with big sunglasses and a good deal of makeup or medicine of some sort covering spots on her face. The other was a kind of skinny guy about my height, blond and kind of unshaven and unkempt, who talked like a punk, a little mumbly and sneery. The woman introduced herself as Tanis [sic?], and said that she'd lived here, in this apartment, before us. She said that she and her mother had put a lot of work into the place, and would she mind if I let them take a look around to see how it looked now?

Despite feeling that the entire thing was completely strange, I agreed - I've had sketchy people in the office before, for work - and they came in and looked around a bit. The woman pointed out the texturing on the walls, the paintwork on the railing, and the little carpeted area on the stairs, as work she and her mother had done. Before they got much further, they retreated - the guy said that he could tell I was 'sketched out,' which I guess I was.

Outside again, she went on to say that she and the landlady had had a falling out over something - her smoking outside, or something. I tried to note details about them, and their car (white 1980s Ford Probe, base model, license plate number QEJ 970), subtly I thought, but not so subtly the guy didn't notice. He asked why I'd looked. If you can't figure it out, dude... I tried to assure him that lawyers are professional paranoids, and sent them on their way. They lingered a bit, and pulled into the parking space next to ours, for the next building, before I came out again (ostensibly to check the mail), and then they left.

I called the landlady, and left a message. I don't think I want to leave my house for too long, for the next couple nights. Am I being too paranoid and jumpy? Or was I being insufficiently paranoid in the first place, and should never have let them in?

I've posted a classified ad on Craigslist, seeking someone to share my office and practice. Actually I've posted two, because it's not clear whether I'm offering a job or office space. I looked into posting the position on the Oregon State Bar's website too, but they charge $275 per posting, so that's out of the question.

I almost immediately received a response, but it was from a guy whose only credential is a GED, and whose work experience is limited to McDonald's. I can only assume that he replies to everything, without fail, and indeed without reading. Hopefully more will come.

In the third part of our "why it's a problem that law schools don't teach how to practice law" series (where parts one and two were about the value of a J.D. degree and firm managers complaining that new attorneys don't know how to do anything), the ABA Journal reported on Monday that large corporate clients of big law firms are refusing to allow first-year associate attorneys to do any work on their cases. Lulz.

Well, maybe not.

Governor Rick Perry announced at a press conference today his support for HCR 50, which declares that Texas is a 'sovereign' and will not accept 'the oppressive hand' of the Federal government. (Because, as someone already pointed out, that worked out so well for them last time...)

It's most likely that this is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. (Or, more properly, signifying Governor Perry's fear of a strong primary challenger in his next election.) FreeRepublic says that the bill has 'no force of law whatsoever' and calls it a 'toothless demand made of congress on fancy paper.' As the preamble to the Bill points out, the states already have sovereignty in all areas not reserved by the Constitution to the Federal government. However, the Constitution also contains the Supremacy Clause, which unambiguously states that, in the event of conflicts, the Federal Constitution is prior to the states'. The Constitution also contains two hundred years of interpretive jurisprudence, which has generally accepted the notion of the Federal administrative state, and it appears that this is what the Texas legislature objects to. The bill does not name any specific pieces of Federal legislation that Texas proposes to disobey - but it does demand that "all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed." This is a huge amount of what the Federal government does; and it is supported as Constitutional by a vast body of precedent. Objecting to it is about on the order of the 'personal sovereign' or other idiot legal arguments periodically advanced by right-wing nuts.

It's far from clear that anything will come of this, except maybe for Texas turning down some small portion of Federal stimulus money. If they refuse to pay Federal taxes, or comply with Federal administrative regulations - then we'll have a party Constitutional crisis second opportunity for a civil rights lawyer from Illinois to hand the South its collective ass.

On the corner of SE Foster and 92nd, there's a business called Edmonson's Drapery. This name is spelled out in big letters on the building's wall. Unfortunately, right in front of the wall is a metal structure that holds up a billboard or something. One of the legs of this structure perfectly covers up the D in the second word.

I can't imagine why this place doesn't ever seem to get any business.

(Cross-posted to damnportlanders.)

::facepalm:: : An article appeared in the ABA Journal today about a small law firm complaining that most of the junior associates it hires right out of law school are 'clueless' and don't know how to practice law. The comments are hilarious.

Yesterday and this morning, I've been sicker than any time in at least the past seven years, maybe ever. I'll spare writing out the details. I might be getting a little better, or it might just be a lull between attacks. But I'm really scared at the prospect of flying tomorrow morning. (Or meeting with clients the day after that, but anything after that seems very far away indeed.) Nothing for it, of course.

Oh, help.

Every now and then, Livejournal does this totally inexplicable thing, where it replaces the image used in one of your icons with a totally unrelated image. For example, I've had this icon for a long time:



The image above is linked from my album, where I keep backups of all the icons I create (in case anyone should want to borrow one). It is not linked from the actual icon, because, in the place of that image, right now, this appears instead:



At the time of my posting this, it's a green-and-white picture of a guy (is it Elvis?) in a trucker cap. I mention this because for all I know it may revert to its original image - or to some totally unfamiliar third image - at some time, as mysteriously as it turned into this one. I've never seen this image before.

This has happened to me once or twice before. Those times, I fixed the problem by deleting the changed icon and re-uploading the original image. It's never been this particular image that appears, it's been something else equally random. Fixing it is no problem - I'm just wondering why this is happening, whether it's ever happened to anyone else, or if I'm just going crazy. Has anyone else had this happen? Is there any rhyme or reason to it? And who is that guy?

(Cross-posted to damnportlanders.)

I'm kind of worried about my computer. Its fan whirrs almost constantly whenever it's on, even when running only a couple of programs, even after being left off for a night and restarted. It didn't used to do this, I'm fairly sure. It's an older computer (the last of the pre-Intel Mac Powerbooks, about three or four years old). Does this mean that the whole thing is about to collapse? I'm afraid I'm hopelessly dependent upon it for all of my work. Is there anything I can do about this?

When I was a kid, I wore glasses. Sometime in ninth grade, I think, I lost them, and I was to embarrassed to admit it, or something. I didn't need them that badly, and I just went on without them. But lately - as in, the past few years - I've noticed that I get kind of tired when I read a lot, and I have to go over things a lot. And these days, reading and writing are almost all my work.

So I went to an optometrist today, and the result is not surprising at all: I'm slightly farsighted. Getting glasses might, or might not, help my eyes when reading; it wouldn't hurt, they said. Not the most enthusiastic endorsement ever. Does that make it worth getting glasses, you think?

I will be in Detroit from Thursday, March 19 until Tuesday, March 24.