Facebook in Real Life

Here's a hilarious video imagining what a social network website encounter would be like in real life.

One of the difficulties with social network websites is that they present a very simplified picture of human relationships. A person's social world cannot readily be divided up into friends and not-friends. Human relationships are much more complicated and diverse. The simplified matrix of relationships available on social network websites can result in some awkwardness, and it can also result in too much information disclosure. We might want to disclose a lot of information to certain close friends, but much less information to acquaintances or to friends in a more professional context. There is no easy solution for this problem, because a social network website with hundreds of categories for relationships might be rather complicated and oppressive to use. And people might not be pleased to know precisely where on one's relationship matrix they stand. Jack might think he's good friends with Jill, but Jill might classify him as merely a distant acquaintance whom she merely wants to associate with for the purpose of climbing hills.

Hat tip: Sivacracy

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at 08:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Strong Like Bull: Testosterone, Trading, and The Market Mentality

The New York Times reports that “Movements in financial markets are correlated to the levels of hormones in the bodies of male traders, according to a study by two researchers from the University of Cambridge.”

Here are some of the results. “According to the researchers’ analysis, the men who began their workdays with high levels of testosterone did better than those who did not.” But “Excessive testosterone levels can lead a trader to make irrational decisions.” Traders also released large amounts of coritsol which “can help people make more rational decisions during volatile trading periods, too much of it can lead to serious health problems like heart disease and arthritis, and, over time, diminish brain functions like memory.” As to what seemed to matter most: those who started the day with high testosterone had better trading results than those with lower or normal levels: "One trader went on a six-day winning streak, making twice as much money each day as the previous one. Over that period, his testosterone levels rose steadily, some 74 per cent."

Apparently traders resemble football players: high energy, high success, and high, early burn out potential both physically and mentally just with less of the head-butting (at least as far as I know).

Furthermore it seems that male traders may be bulls and literally foster bull markets such that the events are not related to informed rational choices but rather are in fact “irrational exuberance.” (definition) As one of the authors, John Coates put it in the New Scientist article about the study, “The popular view is that experienced traders can control their emotions, … but in fact their endocrine systems are on fire.” Coates further suggested "Maybe bubbles and crashes are coming from these steroids," and "maybe if more women and older men were trading, the markets would be more stable."

Here are some odd possibilities. Traders, like football players and other athletes, will start to take steroids because they think it will enhance their trading wins. In response, all trading will be shifted to individual trading via E-Trade and the like because it would be better for a stable market. Individuals in turn will take steroids because they will want an edge and will believe that higher testosterone will help them pay for that flat screen or their kids’ education. In the end the market will continue as before and no one will really know why.

Oh in case you are wondering, as Susan Daicoff notes yes some attorneys (trial attorneys) tend to have high levels of testosterone according to one study. In addition "Testosterone levels are associated with energy, dominance, persistence, combativeness, focused attention, antisocial behavior, drug and alcohol use, marital discord, violent crime, competition, higher spatial ability and lower verbal ability, fewer smiles, actors, and tattooed people. Dabbs, Alford, and Fielden, 1998." and "A 1979 study found female lawyers to be higher in testosterone than nonlawyers."

Draw your own conclusions.

image: WikiCommons
author: Rex
License: Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License

Posted by Deven Desai at 04:28 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The Case Against Delaware

The state of Delaware has just won a major dispute with New Jersey in the Supreme Court, over a vigorous dissent by Justice Scalia. The dispute concerned New Jersey's plan to build a "huge gas-processing plant on the Jersey side of the Delaware River." As the NYT reports,

New Jersey has threatened to pull state pension funds from Delaware banks. Delaware officials, meanwhile, talked about calling up its National Guard to guard its border. . . . [A] New Jersey legislator wondered aloud about recommissioning the battleship New Jersey, now a museum on the Camden waterfront, just in case.

The majority agreed . . . that New Jersey could not authorize activities “beyond the exercise of ordinary and usual riparian rights in the face of contrary regulation by Delaware.” Justice Antonin Scalia . . . professed to be flabbergasted by the majority’s reasoning. What was so “extraordinary” about a wharf to unload liquefied natural gas, he asked. “Would a pink wharf, or a zig-zagged wharf qualify? How about one for the transfer of “tofu and bean sprouts”?

It all reminds me of a classic 2002 article by Jon Chait charging Delaware with persistent disregard for other states' interests. . . .

The practice of charging road tolls is an archaic holdover blighting much of the Northeast. But Delaware has taken it to a grotesque extreme. Whereas the I-95 tolls amount to less than five cents per mile in New Jersey and four cents per mile in Maryland, in Delaware they cost an exorbitant 18 cents per mile. Which isn't surprising because, in a deeper sense, Delaware's tolls epitomize the state's entire ethos. The organizing principle of Delaware government is to subsidize its people at the rest of the country's expense.

[But not] all the instruments of Delaware's rapacity take the form of meddlesome, high-handed government exacting inflated costs on out-of-state visitors. When need be, the state's avarice can also be fed by the exact opposite. An example of this latter technique is Delaware's enticement of much of the banking industry to relocate within its borders. It did so in 1981 not only by offering special tax breaks--the standard formula that states and localities use to woo industry--but by eviscerating its usury laws, which limit the interest a bank can charge for loans or credit cards.

[S]till, perhaps the prime example of what Louis D. Brandeis called the regulatory "race to the bottom" is Delaware's biggest scam: incorporation fees. It so happens that in excess of 300,000 corporations--including half of the Fortune 500-- incorporate in wee Delaware. . . . Delaware propaganda suggests it is primarily a function of the state's efficient bureaucracy and legal system, which includes a chancery court (a chamber specializing in business disputes). This is partly true, but it ignores the overriding factor:. . . its laws are specifically crafted to appeal to the interests of corporate executives.

All of this is deliberate state policy. A hundred years ago, in fact, the great trusts preferred to incorporate in New Jersey, not Delaware. It was only when New Jersey, under the progressive-era governorship of Woodrow Wilson, altered its laws to take account of interests (other than management) that corporations began to flee across the Delaware River.

Jon Chait's laments will be no surprise to those who run the "race to the bottom" blog. (As Tim Glynn notes, "Delaware’s jurists are willing to go beyond the traditional norms of judicial behavior to advance Delaware’s interests.") Nevertheless, I may just end up on Delaware's side in this particular dispute. New Jersey's proposal doesn't exactly sound enviro-friendly--and as one who commutes through the chemical tanks of Kearny, NJ on a daily basis, I'm not exactly confident in the state's environmental record.

Posted by Frank Pasquale at 06:21 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Charlie Stross on Presidential Politics and Dungeons and Dragons

Just a quick note: Charlie Stross has a fun post, Politics as she is Played with 3d6, about the way D&D might represent the current Presidential candidates. Enjoy. (I know many of you indulged in D&D if not other role-playing games at some point so revel in it. And even if you didn't the joke still works).

Teaser: Apparently being a law professor is an alignment (for the uninitiated alignment addresses the moral/ethical aspects of a character in the game). Take a look to see who was given what I think in Stross's view dubious mark.

Hat Tip: John Scalzi, The Whatever

Image: D&D Web Site Check it out for the stroll down amnesia lane

Posted by Deven Desai at 05:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Official Leaked US News Law School Rankings, Plus Ranking Secrets Revealed!

I've got the scoop of the year! An anonymous source from US News & World Report leaked this memo to me. It is a memo written by the magazine’s “law school ranking executive” describing how the magazine arrived at this year’s official rankings.

See below for a sneak peak at this year's rankings as well as some amazing secrets about how US News ranks law schools.

UPDATE: I was contacted by Bob Morse at US News & World Report. He reports that although he realizes it was a joke, some people have been emailing US News, thinking that this is really a leaked memo. News flash to the very gullible: The memo is fake. After all, could the real ranking process possibly be as rational as the memo?

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at 12:54 AM | TrackBack

Economist Humor

The Standup Economist, Yoram Bauman, just presented a humorous take on Gregory Mankiw's Ten Principles of Economics. Mankiw is a professor at Harvard. His textbooks on economics are apparently widely used. Bauman presented this take to the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting. In addition it seems Mankiw either liked the take or wanted the publicity enough that he posted the video to his blog. Enjoy the silliness on a Sunday.

Hat tip: Crooked Timber

Cross-posted at Madisonian

Posted by Deven Desai at 12:51 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Life Imitates Art

This:

Starbucks Takes a 3-Hour Coffee Break

seems wayyyy too close for comfort to this:

Starbucks To Begin Sinister 'Phase Two' Of Operation

Posted by Bruce Boyden at 06:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Spies Who Love You

Snuggly, the security bear, is back to tell us about the Protect America Act, FISA, and immunity for telecomm companies. I linked to an earlier video here. Check out the new video, The Spies Who Love You. It's hilarious!

Hat tip: Chronicles of Dissent

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at 12:02 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Network News Gives Up

With the Daily Show's writers on strike, you might think it difficult to get entertaining parodies of the poor state of network newscasts -- where "in-depth reports" mean the story is 2 whole minutes long -- but that's not necessarily true. The weekend evening newscasts are becoming a pretty good parody of themselves.

Take this example from last night's ABC World News Sunday, reporting on disabled sprinter Oscar Pistorius's efforts to be allowed to compete in the 2008 Olympics. One key question is whether Pistorius's artificial legs give him an "unfair" advantage over able-bodied runners -- "unfair" defined plausibly as due to the use of technology during the race. Certainly Pistorius is using technology, but does that actually give him any advantage? When the New York Times looked at that issue 8 months ago, it actually did a step-by-step analysis of how Pistorius's artificial lower legs compare to having muscles and feet, concluding that Pistorius has to work harder to achieve the same speed in the same amount of time:

Here's how ABC News does it.

First, "some fear" that sprinters like Pistorius are catching up to able-bodied sprinters, and might "pass them." (Check out this video at about the 1:15 mark.) How do we know that might happen? Because this PowerPoint graphic shows Pistorius moving ahead of another runner:

Second, allowing Pistorius to compete might mean that eventually we have to allow Steve Austin -- the Bionic Man -- to compete too. I kid you not:

Did ABC hire Kent Brockman while I wasn't looking?

Posted by Bruce Boyden at 04:39 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Seinfeld, Language, and Law

Years ago law prof Jedediah Purdy warned us of Seinfeld's charms. Here's a reviewer's account:

The ironic man, whom Mr. Purdy personifies as the sitcom character Jerry Seinfeld . . . is an outright menace. With his ''style of speech and behavior that avoids all appearance of naivete -- of naive devotion, belief, or hope,'' the individual armored in the irony . . . has withdrawn from the political arena just when it needs him most.

But he's certainly outfront with lawsuit PR. Now courts may have to wrestle with the polysemic potential of his irony (and humor generally).

Seinfeld was on Letterman last year, and his comments on the woman now suing his wife for plagiarism were not exactly conciliatory. Now he's being sued for defamation. Here's the video, which gets interesting 40 seconds in:

Jonathan Turley gives excellent background and analysis; he has the following comment

Seinfeld called Lapine . . . “hysterical.” He said: “Now you know, having a career in show business, one of the fun facts of celebrity life is wackos will wait in the woodwork to pop out at certain moments of your life to inject a little adrenaline into your life experience.” He further noted that Lapine could be dangerous, joking “if you read history, many of the three-name people do become assassins . . . Mark David Chapman. And you know, James Earl Ray. So that’s my concern.”

The Seinfelds are clearly going to defend on the basis that his statements were opinion and not factual representations covered by defamation rules.

A few thoughts below the fold. . .

As James Grimmelmann notes, there are a few exceptions to the immunity for opinions:

The relationship of subjective opinion to objective fact . . . is not simple. Thus, for example, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., while stating the rule that the Constitution shields opinions, leaves in place two significant exceptions. A statement of opinion may imply an underlying fact (the Court’s example: “In my opinion John Jones is a liar.”), and even a statement of opinion may be false if not honestly held (the Court’s example: “I think Jones lied,” where the speaker thought nothing of the sort).

In this context, is the "assassin" joke only funny if there is some objective implication of imbalance or impropriety regarding the person whom it's aimed at? I find the case a bit difficult because Jerry Seinfeld (the person) has sometimes glided effortlessly between being a certain persona and playing one. For example, consider this video of him on Larry King Live:

Is Seinfeld here seamlessly sliding into "playing an obnoxious character" or is he being an obnoxious character? Is this the "true self" speaking, or spinning out some subtle humor (that the miffed King appears not to be in on)?

Having listened to his talk at the NY Academy of Sciences, I'm reminded of Stephen Pinker's takes on the slipperiness of language, here related by reviewer William Saletan:

Language is a social medium with social purposes. Sometimes, we use it not to communicate facts about the world but to filter them. We euphemize bribes as “contributions” to preserve the dignity of lobbyists and legislators. We phrase treaties vaguely because if they were clear, nobody would sign them. . . . . We complain about doublespeak but rely on double meanings.

Turley has the following take on Seinfeld's double meanings:

While he appears to be joking, he is also clearly portraying Lapine –at a minimum — as unbalanced. . . . Terms like wacko can be claimed to have a more innocent meaning. Under the principle of Mitior sensus, “when words have two meanings, lenient and severe, they will always be construed in the more lenient sense.” Yet, this is generally a jury decision and the Seinfelds and their publisher will first be subject to discovery — a potentially risky business.

Having read a few cases in this area, I've been worried by some judges' willingness to take every potentially defamatory statement piecemeal, characterize them individually as opinions or "obvious hyperbole," and dismiss the underlying defamation case. A series of innuendoes, jokes, dismissals, and jibes can probably undermine a reputation far more effectively than one false fact.

On the other hand, Seinfeld himself has satirized the lengths he would have to go to in order to avoid any unwanted overtones--not that there's anything wrong with that!

Posted by Frank Pasquale at 11:01 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

Moderating a Panel: A Nightmare

Over at Prawfsblawg, Liz Glazer has a post about the transition new professors experience from anxiety dreams about being a student (the math class you haven't attended all semester) to anxiety dreams about teaching. Although I have been teaching for several years now in various capacities, I so far have not had an anxiety dream about teaching. (Knock on wood.) But I have had an anxiety dream about moderating a panel. It went like this:

In the dream, I show up at a conference panel I'm supposed to moderate, only to realize I don't recognize any of the speakers and I don't have any information on me about who they are or what the panel is about. It's five minutes before the panel is supposed to start. I need to figure out a discreet way of finding out the names and bios of each panelist. Someone engages me in conversation before I can get to the podium. Not wanting to give away my panic, I talk nonchalantly. Three minutes. I extract myself from the conversation. Maybe if I just engage the panelists in conversation I'll see their nametags. But they are busy talking to other people. Two minutes. I manage to get the attention of the first panelist. I ask the panelist to spell his/her name and confirm his/her bio. Time's up. People are settling in their seats and looking at me. I'm standing at the podium. Boy, I hadn't realized how well-attended this session would be. I flip through my papers once more, trying to find our panel description, but I'm having trouble focusing on the words. It seems awfully quiet.

Then I wake up.

Posted by Bruce Boyden at 03:27 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

President Bush on Art. II, Sec. 2

I remember being quite amused at the following New York Times quote, by our President and Commander-in-Chief. It was more than a month ago (11/8), but I don't recall it eliciting much comment either in the media or the blogosphere. Maybe it's just me...

"[A]ppearing at George Washington's mansion in Mount Vernon, Va., with President Nicolas Sarkozy of France[, Mr. Bush said,] 'You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time.'''

OK. Um, but see U.S. Const., art. II sec. 2.

To be fair, full context of both:

''My message was that we believe strongly in elections, and that you ought to have elections soon, and you need to take off your uniform,'' Mr. Bush said later, appearing at George Washington's mansion in Mount Vernon, Va., with President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. ''You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time.''

**********

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States....

But I was still amused.

Posted by Jeremy Blumenthal at 09:23 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

The Brutal Attack Ads Begin

(ht Marc Bohn)

Posted by Nate Oman at 09:05 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

The Woes of Web 2.0

From CNN comes yet another story about people who disclose too much information on their blogs and social network websites:

On a Facebook group that celebrates young women getting drunk, there's no such thing as going too far.

One young woman dances on top of a bar. Another sits on the toilet drinking a beer. Several vomit. One appears with a bruised and bandaged face ("I just got drunk and fell out of a car," she writes.). In another photo, two women urinate into a waterfall.

What you won't find on this page -- called "Thirty Reasons Girls Should Call it a Night" -- is humiliation and embarrassment. For the most part, the women post the photos themselves, seemingly with pride. This makes many adults -- teachers, counselors, parents -- worry that students aren't thinking through the consequences of showing themselves drunk to the world.

Many photos on the site are accompanied by full names and the colleges the women attend, apparently without much concern that parents, or potential employers, will take a look.

Recently, a commenter to one of my posts pointed me to this apt cartoon at Geek Culture's The Joy of Tech.

Used with permission.

Will having embarrassing information on the Internet affect people's employment prospects in the future? Or will it all just grow passé? Are we witnessing a generational shift, where people will just get used to being more exposed than ever before? Will people be less harsh in judging others, as everybody will have their drunk naked photos and other private information online? Or will there be consequences and regrets? Only time will tell, but I find it to be an interesting issue for cultural speculation.

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at 01:22 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Parody of Poetry of the Law

Thanks so much to Dan Solove, Frank Pasquale, and the rest of the distinguished group for allowing me to sully the Concurring Opinions cyberspace.

I was all set to introduce myself with something really serious (the posting on SSRN of a new piece) when I saw Nate Oman's post on the poetry of law. I am always humbled by Nate's thoughts on just about anything, because he is a scholar in ways I will never be. I thought not of great poetry (but if I had it would have been Robert Burns' great piece on lawyers, To A Louse*), but of parody, including Jeremy Telman's regular limerick fare over at Contract Law Prof Blog. Two weeks ago, NPR's Morning Edition did a story on BU law prof Mark Pettit, the "singing prof," who puts contracts cases to the tune of popular songs. Not to be outdone, I spent most of that day writing a musical (and I'd like to think, poetic) version of Pinter v. Dahl, the securities regulation chestnut we just happened to be studying. For all of the non-securities lawyers out there, this is the case in which the Supreme Court stretched to the limit the use of the English language in finding a party other than the issuer to be liable under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933. And, despite the fact that (to steal a line from the Tappert Brothers, Click and Clack, of Car Talk, also on NPR) man-eating sharks lose their appetite when they hear me sing, I sang it to my class.

So without further ado, and to the tune of the theme from The Beverly Hillbillies:

Come and listen to my story bout that guy Maurice,
California boy just a-waitin’ to be fleeced.
Then one day put some money in with Bill
Out in Oklahoma where the wildcatters drill.
Oil, that is, black gold. Texas tea.
Well, the next thing you know Maurice is on the dole,
Askin’ lots of friends he knows to throw cash down the hole
Said Beej Pinter is the guy you wanna see
And they each put some money in without an SEC
Filing, that is. Form S-1.

Well, now it’s time to figure out if anyone can claim
That someone not the issuer can bear part of the blame
For selling shares unregistered with no gratuity,
To share a heapin’ helpin’ of some liability.

Section 12(a)(1) that is. 33 Act. Write a check.

Y’all invest now, hear?

The question is how many times the act got recorded on cell phones.

* "O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!"

Posted by Jeff Lipshaw at 10:59 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Worst Book Title Winners

Over at The Book Page of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the winners for the worst book title have been announced. Nominees include:

* Letting It Go: A History of American Incontinence
* The Stray Shopping Carts of Eastern North America: A Guide to Field Identification
* Everything You’ll Need to Remember About Alzheimer’s

But the winner is: Cooking With Pooh

Hat tip: Crooked Timber

Can anybody suggest other book titles worthy of consideration?

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at 02:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Predatory Lending: Meet Jonathan Swift

At the new website of the Predatory Lending Association, aspiring lenders can find concentrations of "working poor" customers in their neighborhood, calculate effectively usurious loans, not blacklist crusaders against payday lending, including Liz Warren, and learn all the arguments that goo-goos will make against high-interest borrowing. One Q&A in particular should be familiar to contracts professors (or maybe just those, like me, who use Randy Barnett's Perspectives book):

Myth: Payday lending is comparable to selling yourself into slavery.

Reality: Although there is a market need for slavery, people do not choose to sell themselves into slavery. Free choice is the difference between payday lending and slavery.

(There is even a neat chart to make the connection more clear.) On the discussion boards, you can share your thoughts with other predatory lenders. Sure, it all seems a little too cute, but it's worth checking out anyway.

Posted by Dave Hoffman at 04:32 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

The World's Most Expensive Dessert and How to Get into the Guinness Book of World Records

From Reuters comes this story about the world's most expensive sundae:

A day after New York City came up with a $1,000 bagel, a local restaurateur unveiled a $25,000 chocolate sundae on Wednesday, setting a Guinness world record for the most expensive dessert.

Stephen Bruce, owner of Serendipity 3, partnered with luxury jeweler Euphoria New York to create the "Frozen Haute Chocolate," a blend of 28 cocoas, including 14 of the most expensive and exotic from around the globe.

The dessert, spelled with two Rs, is infused with 5 grams (0.2 ounces) of edible 23-karat gold and served in a goblet lined with edible gold. At the base of the goblet is an 18-karat gold bracelet with 1 carat of white diamonds.

The sundae is topped with whipped cream covered with more gold and a side of La Madeline au Truffle from Knipschildt Chocolatier, which sells for $2,600 a pound.

It is eaten with a gold spoon decorated with white and chocolate-colored diamonds, which can also be taken home.

There are many perplexing things about this story. First, what fool would actually buy this sundae? Second, is this all it takes to get into the Guinness Book of World Records?

I would like to be in the Guinness Book too, so I'm going to do Serendipity 3 one better -- I'm offering a sundae for $50,000. It consists of store-bought Edy's ice cream (3 scoops -- extra scoops will cost $10,000 more), whipped cream, and some Hershey's chocolate sauce. And you can keep the spoon too. I'll even throw in the bowl.

I really don't understand why there's any category for most-expensive anything. After all, anybody can set whatever price he or she wants, so it's quite easy to claim the award for most-expensive.

By the way, I am also selling a million-dollar hamburger. I think that this is also the world's most expensive. Wow, that's two Guinness world records in just one day!

Photo Credit: Reuters

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at 06:13 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

Openness on Usefulness

The New York Times has a piece on "quirky camouflage designs" that reportedly reflect new fear over street crime in Japan. Fashion designers are making vending machine costumes for adults and mailbox ones for children. But the article quickly retreats from suggesting that anyone would actually use the devices, instead situating them in a Japanese tradition of "unuseless inventions:"

Japan produces so many unusual inventions that it even has a word for them: chindogu, or “queer tools.” The term was popularized by Kenji Kawakami, whose hundreds of intentionally impractical and humorous inventions have won him international attention as Japan’s answer to Rube Goldberg. His creations, which he calls “unuseless,” include a roll of toilet paper attached to the head for easy reach in hay fever season, and tiny mops for a cat’s feet that polish the floor as the cat prowls.

And let's not forget the hair blocker at right.

America has its own tradition of "goofy inventions," some of which made it onto one of the worst TV shows of the past decade--American Inventor. See what you think of the patentability of the "pet petter" in this YouTube clip.

Anyway, the NYT article has a nice take on the "utility" requirement in patent law. For a patent to issue, an invention has to be useful, but this is a pretty weak requirement. For example, even a faux-drink-dispenser will do. How about a vending machine costume to evade a mugging?

Mr. Kawakami said that while some of Japan’s anticrime devices might not seem practical, they were valuable because they might lead to even better ideas. “Even useless things can be useful,” he said. “The weird logic of these inventions helps us see the world in fresh ways.”

Perhaps theorists of Japanese decline should take notice!

Posted by Frank Pasquale at 12:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

My Absolute Favorite Item for Sale on Amazon.com

From the annals of the weird comes my absolute favorite item for sale on Amazon.com.

What is it?

I'm sure you think it might be my new book, but nope, it's not. So what is it then?

Well, it is quite expensive, but it also is one of the most well-reviewed products on Amazon.com -- it has 163 reviews and counting.

This mysterious item appears after the break.

It's the JL421 Badonkadonk Land Cruiser/Tank. Yours for only $19,999.95. It weighs 1100 pounds. Sadly, no free shipping on this one.

From the product description:

The JL421 Badonkadonk is a completely unique, extremely rare land vehicle and battle tank. Designed with versatility in mind, the Donk can transport cargo or a crew of five internally or on the roof, and can be piloted from within the armored shell or from an exposed standing position through the hatch, thanks to special one-way steel mesh armor windows and a control stick that pivots up and down to allow piloting from the standing or seated positions. The interior is fully carpeted and cozy, with accent lighting and room for up to five people. A 400 watt premium sound system with PA is mounted to project sound both into the cabin and outward from behind the windows. The exterior is a steel shell with a rust patina, and features head and tail lights, turn signal lights, trim lighting, underbody lighting, fixed slats protecting the windows, and a unique industrial-strength rubberized flexible skirt that shields and protects the wheels to within an inch of the ground, while still allowing for enough flex to give clearance over bumpy and uneven terrain. Master power, ignition, all lighting, and stereo features are controlled from a single switchboard to the left of the driver, again accessible from either the seated or standing position. Standard drive is an air-cooled, 6hp Tecumseh gasoline (unleaded only) engine, with centrifugal clutch, giving the Donk a top speed of 40 mph. . . .

As I said before, the product has 163 reviews! Here's what one reviewer had to say:

I'll admit it. Shopping for a personal tank can be a bit daunting. Many times in the past I've purchased overpriced, so-called "battle tanks", then driven them into battle only to be wrecked in ten minutes by the first blow off of some insurgents home-made morter.

But not this baby, no way. . . .

The only real negative with this tank is that it shows up on radar a little more than I like (although there is a polyresin graphite stealth model available). Also, the included spare isn't full size.

Overall, a great tank.

Another writes:

Some people have sticker shock when they see the price of the Badonkadonk, but what did they expect? A tank for the price of a Kia? Come'on! Let's be reasonable! If you were considering a Hummer, you'd have to cough up around fifty grand. Or more. This bad boy is cheap at 19K and even my Hyundai cost more than that. This is a stone bargain, make no mistake.

Read the rest of the comments -- some of them are quite funny.

And if you buy this tank, please please use my Amazon Associates link! It's only about $20,000. What are you waiting for?

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at 12:03 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

More on Naming and Orwell (and Pigs)

Tim's interesting recent post on naming made me think about other strange naming laws, and I was reminded more of some of the intricacies of the French system, in which there is an approved government registry of names (no calling your sons Anakin, Monsieur!). In this vein, the Times recently reported on a peculiar extension of this rule to pig-naming: In France, it is apparently illegal to call your pig Napoleon. Such a law would be a very easy case under American free speech jurisprudence, as it is not only a content-based restriction on political speech, but also arguably viewpoint-based. I wonder whether it would also apply to George Orwell's Animal Farm, in which the principal villain is a Berkshire Boar named Napoleon. Curiously, in the French translation of the novel, he is named Cesar instead, which was apparently a concession to the political controversy that calling a pig "Napoleon" in France would have created, even in a novel.

Posted by Neil Richards at 02:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Announcing Deanship Opening

We are seeking applicants for the position of Dean. The applicants should have some administrative experience although a prior deanship is not required. Some but not exceptional scholarly productivity is a requirement. Among the attributes that will be examined is the ability to work well with others. More specifically:
1. The dean should generally say yes to all faculty requests no matter how absurd.
2. The dean should not ask faculty to fill holes in the curriculum on a temporary basis.
3. The dean should make use of liberal summer research grants without expecting immediate – or any – results.
4. The dean should prepare massive glossy publications publicizing the scholarship of the faculty in lieu of actually requiring the production of scholarship.
5. Classes should not be scheduled on Monday or Friday or any day before 10:00 AM.
6. The deans should avoid controversy by shifting difficult issues to faculty committees, ignoring issues in hopes they will go away, or by redefining the issue
7. The dean should listen to no one except those on the faculty who he or she believes could influence the future of his or her deanship.
8. The dean should first and always think about the welfare of the faculty over that of the students.

The Search Committee is aware that there are many highly qualified decanal candidates and ask that interested applicants submit their resumes as soon as possible.

Posted by Jeffrey Harrison at 12:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Chicken, Chicken, Chicken...

Contracts professors have decided that this presentation is about Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp., 190 F.Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1960), a case in which Judge Friendly famously began his opinion with the sentence: "The issue is, what is chicken?" The full text of the paper presented below can be found here.

(HT: Pete Fitzgerald, Stetson Law School)

Posted by Nate Oman at 09:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

New Summer Program

This is an exceptional new summer law study program open to both law students and interested law professors. Summer Study in Italy, will take place from June 6- July 21 2008. Three weeks in Rome follow by three weeks in Florence. Students will be lectured by Professor Chadsworth Osborne, Jr., and Hugo Valencia, and several esteemed representatives of the Italian legal system -- such that it is. Six hours of credit available from a choice of 4 courses. Groups outings will be arranged to important and historic sites. All inclusive tuition is $3000. This includes housing but not airfare and meals. However, the airfare should be highly discounted as you do not actually have to travel to Italy to participate. Video transmissions will include classes, meals, and all outings so you will be able to absorb the beauties of Italy while at home. Why eat at Italian McDonalds when the program permits you to stay at home and eat at your local McDonalds or any other restaurant of your choice. The program fillled quickly last year and was a huge success. Applications are found at Privilegelaw. See you in Roma!!

Posted by Jeffrey Harrison at 10:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

In Praise of Market Imperfections

You would expect to go out of business if you hired people without knowing if they could do the job. And, the same would be true if you had no reliable way of measuring if they actually were doing the job once they were hired. Law Schools do both of these. They would prefer to hire second tier students from elite law schools rather than top students form non elite schools. Yet, the empirical evidence I know of shows that the scholarly production of the non elites once hired is no lower than that of the elites. In fact, since law reviews use credentials as a basis for article selection, non elites may be actually outperforming elites. Do we have any reliable way to evaluate what the new hires do? Give me a break. We have faculty classroom visits announced ahead of time that result in evaluations that could have been written ahead of time – all positive given the propensity of law professors to shirk from institutional responsibilites. And we have student evaluations that largely reflect expected grades. On scholarship, we send the articles to a list of reviewers influenced by the candidate or just the regular suppliers of positive letters. Be grateful for market imperfections!

Posted by Jeffrey Harrison at 01:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Does the Phillies' Pennant Mean It's Good to be a Philadelphia Plaintiff's Lawyer?

I had the tremendous pleasure of attending yesterday's 6-1 Phillies victory over the Nationals. In the ninth, the crowd learned of the Mets' loss (and consequent, miraculous, Phillies clinching of the National League East pennant) about five minutes before the scoreboard posted that result, demonstrating the quick response time of social networks. I screamed my head off, and as a result will be hoarse for class tonight. Ironically, I'm teaching acceptance by silence.

But I didn't put up this post just to gloat. That would be wrong.

Well after the game, I wondered about the interaction between sports victories and legal decision making. I know there are studies out there that correlate a home-team's victory with a limited bump in local discretionary spending, and that overall wins (and teams) have negligible effects on economic growth. That makes some sense to me. But sports victories certainly have noneconomic effects. Wins change the atmosphere in cities (like Philadelphia) where there are tightly-connected urban communities. Just to relay an anecdote: this morning, on the subway, I observed someone actually give up their place to a woman transporting two small children. I don't think that happens on an ordinary day in Philly.

Does winning matter for law? It's not implausible, and it is relatively easy to test. I bet that jury awards today for prevailing plaintiffs are higher than average, and that judges are slightly less likely to grant summary judgment. (And visa versa. I would not want to open a civil case before a Queens jury today.) Civic noise certainly matters to legal decisionmakers: if the narrative around town is "the underdog has prevailed," that has got to have some impact on the legal system. All of which is to say: plaintiffs lawyers able to choose cases might consider picking clients likely to go to trial in jurisdictions with winning local sports teams.

Posted by Dave Hoffman at 04:17 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Saving the Earth, 24 Hours at a Time

The New Republic, a serious magazine for right thinking people not noted for its humor, has a very funny article up on their website that confirms all of your suspicions about the possibilities of combining Jack Bauer, Al Gore, environmentalist jokes, and a Simpson's writer It begins:

EPISODE 1: 12:00 AM - 1:00 AM

Int. CTU - day

JACK BAUER talks to JANIS GOLD.

JANIS GOLD
Our source tells us that the terrorists' plan is blow up Broward Dam. This would create mass flooding, cut power to the entire state, and destroy the habitat of the tidewater goby.

JACK BAUER
Dammit! Without that goby, what will our local heron population eat?

JANIS GOLD
Try not to think about that.

JACK BAUER
I can't help it! Every link in the food chain matters!

Jack punches his hand through a wall.

And so on. I cried during the Al Gore part...

Posted by Nate Oman at 10:02 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Beware the Teenie Weenie: Social Norms and Expressive Culture

I've been doing a lot of reading and thinking about intellectual freedom lately, as part of a project on the overlap between intellectual privacy rules and First Amendment values. I've also come across some pretty weird stuff, like this story from the German media about a children's book deal that fell through. A famous German children's book author was trying to get a book deal to publish a translated version of her illustrated children's book in the US. Unfortunately, the deal didn't happen after an irreconcilable disagreement arose over a picture appearing in a museum scene in the book. As the article puts it rather cheekily:

What could possibly have got the suits at [the publisher] so hot under the overly starched collar? A painting depicting a gratuitous Roman orgy being viewed by wide-eyed 5-year olds? A massive bronze phallus gawped at by an awestruck group of pre-teens? Hardly. Apart from a tasteful nude reclining in a slightly blurred watercolor in the background, the main offending artifact was a tiny male statue and its microscopic penis.

Apparently, the offending image was less than half a millimeter in size, but the publisher insisted on its removal for fear of a backlash from offended parents.

We could dismiss this as a fairly silly story about the lunacy of the publishing industry, but I think there is a serious issue here. This is not an issue of censorship, because the government is not involved in making the book unavailable. But one of the problems with the way we tend to think about speech, is that we are fixated on the model of legislative rules that get remedied (or not) by judges. If we're really interested in promoting an expressive culture, we need to look beyond this judicial anti-censorship model.

The teenie weenie case points up the critical role of social norms in helping to define the contours of our expressive culture. Theories of free speech focus a great deal on legal rules even though most people's decision to speak or not speak on questions is principally mediated by the concern of how others (employers, friends, strangers, book publishers) will act towards us depending upon what we say. The norms of the book publisher in this case meant that this book was not made available for the US market.

What's the harm with that? Well, the ability to think for ourselves requires access to a wide variety of materials. When books aren't published because they are offensive, we are deprived of what they offer. This case involves just one book, but the aggregated effect of small decisions like this really determines the intellectual space that our minds inhabit. The social norms which this decision seems to reflect would (if strong enough) push certain notions of art out of children's literature, and could have an effect on how children come to see the world, the nature of art, and the human body. Publishers of books are in business to make money, but they should also realize (as reporters and librarians frequently do) that they occupy a social institution that has real effects on our expressive culture. Our expressive culture depends on publishers fulfilling their professional role as guardians of free speech as well as profit-maximizers. Wimping out because of possibly imaginary fears of angry parents does us all a disservice, at least if we care more about an open-minded culture than protecting people (even little ones) from the teenie weenie.

Posted by Neil Richards at 09:44 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

The Law and Economics of the Doping Scandals

Peter Singer has written a usefully provocative essay, “Why Not Let Doping Close the Gene Gap,” in which he questions the conventional wisdom on steroids’ moral harmfulness. Singer points out that prohibiting doping puts those with inferior genes at a disadvantage, and that the current line between that which sports leagues prohibit and that which they do not is hard to defend. Thus, why not permit athletes to take drugs, whether or not those drugs harm them.

Singer’s arguments are (as they often are) hard to cabin. If steroids, why not artificial legs, lungs, hands, eyes. Though, if not steroids, why caffeine, IVs, Gatorade, and pickle juice. I was left feeling kind of stuck in a swamp, and so I thought, as I often try to do when confronted by a vexing legal problem, WWPD? What would Posner do?

We could ask him, but he’s a busy guy. So, let’s see if we can gin up a back-of-the-envelope look at the law and economics of sports doping.

Starting at the back-end, the classic L&E approach to crime is Becker’s. The model implies that imprisoning players for using steroids is inefficient, of course. But also wealth minimizing are techniques that suspend players from the game when caught doping. Instead, we should give players something like a “right to dope,” but “tax” them through fines for using performance enhancing substances. (Heck, you could make a fine schedule, starting at $5 for Gatorade, $15 for a misting machine on the sidelines; $50 for a cortisone injection before a game; all the way up to $1,000,000 for uppers.) In this way, we’d get an optimal amount of steroid use, as individual players calculate the increased value (to them) of increased performance, when taking into account the fine.

Fines should be increased as the probability of detection decreases. Since well-publicized detection regimes seem to increase fan happiness and thus player earning potential, a naïve analysis would suggest that we have a relatively low fine schedule coupled with very tough enforcement. Thus, the NFL is efficient and the MLB is not. Not surprising: the NFL is a well-run business; the MLB is still relying on its eyes.

As I said, a naïve analysis. The problem is that we assumed that the criminalization of steroid use (or, more appropriately, its regulation by our quasi-governmental licensing entity, the league) is efficient. Readers will perceive that the economic approach sketched above, by removing moral considerations from line-drawing, exposes the irrationality of condemning steroids in the first instance.

The social harms from steroids are relatively few: users (athletes) have potentially shorter careers and reduced life expectancies; fans lose interest in the game when they believe it is tainted, reducing team revenue; general malaise, and possibly reduced economic growth, in cities affected by doping; and an increased chance of amateurs, including minors, using steroids. The social benefits from steroids are: increased abilities by using players, resulting in dramatic increases in personal popularity and earning potential; increased revenue and happiness in cities with teams that have doped by where the doping is not exposed; more physical activity occasioned by individuals trying to ape players’ success.

Thus, almost all of steroids’ social ills seem to be caused by monitoring. (This is like and unlike the economic case against prohibiting psychotropic drugs in severity and scope.) The lone exception is players’ health effects, but this cost can be discounted. Players presumably will calculate the cost to them of steroid use, weigh it against future earning potential, and make efficient decisions. Some might be concerned about a potential race-to-the-bottom here, where all players would be forced to take steroids to compete, especially those who in an imperfectly policed market would prefer to be steroid free. However, this concern is misplaced. Players can stop the downward roll toward a lemons market by warranting that they are drug free, enforced by a private organization, or perhaps even the league itself. Maybe there is a market for this -- it isn't implausible, considering that players who live clean lives off-the-field can already reap better merchandising opportunities than those who do not.

All the other costs, including the “bad halo” effect on amateurs, would disappear if we didn’t know what players were doing. Like, say, the 1993 Phillies. I was happy then. Am I happier now? Not even close. Thus, the NFL’s current policy is inefficient, unless you think that what is really going on is unmonitored drug use in colleges and high schools. The MLB’s current policy is even worse, as it couples high visibility with low efficacy. The only really efficient policy was the MLB’s circa, say, 1970 or so, when everything was practically on the table. And the NHL's until two years ago. (Yes, this analysis assumes that hockey remains a major league sport. It isn't, I know. But were the Flyers to suddenly take a championship, I reserve the right to delete this paragraph.)

Hee. Well, as you probably can see, I think economics has surprisingly little that is useful to say about whether given acts should be criminalized, or not. Indeed, I think that this normative hole has held back economic analysis’ influence on the criminal justice system. If you can’t give an account of what should be unlawful, tinkering with remedies will remain a sideshow act.

So this is the challenge for our readers, who are undoubtedly more sophisticated than I about economic theory. Can you articulate an economic case for prohibiting steroid use? Or permitting it? Is there a useful way to think about actions that create economic harms only when exposed and discussed? (Also in this category: adultery, possibly instances of sales-inducing puffery, and - maybe - wiretapping?)

Posted by Dave Hoffman at 12:01 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

A Sample Law Review Submission Policy