Yearly Archives: 2008

James Gleick on the future of books

Posted on by
Reply

The great science writer James Gleick writes in today’s NYT about the future of books:

As a technology, the book is like a hammer. That is to say, it is perfect: a tool ideally suited to its task. Hammers can be tweaked and varied but will never go obsolete. Even when builders pound nails by the thousand with pneumatic nail guns, every household needs a hammer. Likewise, the bicycle is alive and well. It was invented in a world without automobiles, and for speed and range it was quickly surpassed by motorcycles and all kinds of powered scooters. But there is nothing quaint about bicycles. They outsell cars.

The op-ed is a thoughtful take on the future of books, including the significance of the recent settlement of the Google Book Search litigation, in which Gleick played a role as a negotiator for the authors.

Advice for new law students, part IV: essay exams

Posted on by
Reply

Understandably, new law students stress over how to write essay exams.  In my Civil Procedure class, I run multiple review sessions including an essay exam writing workshop.  For the workshop, I hand out tips and techniques on doing Civ Pro essay exams in my class.  Although the materials below are geared towards Civil Procedure and my class in particular, some may have relevance to other first-year classes.  Keep in mind that other professors may have differing expectations, so the suggestions below may not be applicable to your class.

Substantive considerations:

Argue the facts presented. A common error on essay exams is failing to argue the facts provided.  Sometimes I see relevant facts omitted from the discussion.  Other times, students change facts or invent facts that aren’t in the exam.  Sometimes this is because students don’t want to discuss the issues presented. You can’t do that.  However, if you believe that additional facts are needed for your analysis, state what those facts are how they would affect your analysis.

Focus on the issues raised. Do not raise irrelevant issues.  Use your judgment as to the main issues that are likely to be worth more points.  Minor issues are likely to be worth fewer or no points.  You get no points for “negative issue-spotting.”

Do not be conclusory. Always be Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz, i.e., provide the “because, because, because.”  (Think of the lyrics to “We’re Off to See the Wizard.”)  If you state a conclusion without indicating (in that sentence or surrounding sentences) “why” or “because,” then you’re probably being conclusory.  Conclusory is bad.

Continue reading →

A presidential “legacy” via rewritten history

Posted on by
Reply

Web archiving is a topic of great interest to me and the subject of an article I’m writing.  Part of the paper addresses the Bush administration’s questionable conduct regarding the content of the White house website.  For example, the White House website’s robots exclusion file — a mechanism that can be used to ask search engine and web archive spiders to stay away — is nearly 2300 lines long.  2300 lines?  Simply absurd.  (Click here for a copy of the White House robots file that I downloaded on Nov. 25, 2008.)

Today, researchers at the University of Illinois released a study showing how the White House has deleted or modified portions of its website.  Their findings are, sadly, unsurprising:

Legacies are in the air as President Bush prepares to leave the White House. How future historians will judge the president remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: future historians won’t have all the facts needed to make that judgment. One legacy at risk of being forgotten is the way the Bush White House has quietly deleted or modified key documents in the public record that are maintained under its direct control.

Remember the “Coalition of the Willing” that sided with the United States during the 2003 invasion of Iraq? If you search the White House web site today you’ll find a press release dated March 27, 2003 listing 49 countries forming the coalition. A key piece of evidence in the historical record, but also a troubling one. It is an impostor.

And although there were only 45 coalition members on the eve of the Iraq invasion, later deletions and revisions to key documents make it seem that there were always 49.

The study is a disturbing read.  Rightly or not, a primary source of history for many researchers is the web.  And any effort by the government to modify or delete historical records is appalling.  As the authors note:

Updating lists to keep up with the times is one thing. Deleting original documents from the White House archives is another. Back-dating later documents and using them to replace the originals goes beyond irresponsible stewardship of the public record. It is rewriting history.

H/T: New York Times.

New Star Trek trailer

Posted on by
Reply

The new Star Trek trailer has had mixed reviews on the internet.  Me, I think it’s frakking awesome.  Sure, the trailer is mostly action, but that’s ok.  It’s is trying to attract an audience beyond the pointy-ears-and-forehead-ridges wearing set, and does so successfully.

Based on watching the trailer (repeatedly) and reading around the web (see fansite TrekMovie for at-times heated commentary), I think that the pic has great potential of combining great action, character development, and big ideas.  (Think Wrath of Khan.)

YouTube Preview Image

For a list of spoofs and parodies of the new Trek trailer (such as Smallville Trek, etc.), go to TrekMovie.

UPDATE (11/27): AICN has posted a new trailer with an appearance by old Spock played by Leonard Nimoy.  I’ve substituted the video for the updated trailer.  (H/T to TrekMovie.com.)  The older trailer can be found here.