look, i twittered today!

• 08:49 dear windows: fuck off. love, me. #
• 11:19 @agent_zero good luck! #
• 11:32 two more days! <3 #
• 15:58 such a busy day. looking forward to my massage appointment tonight. :-) #
• 17:46 ron goldman's family apparently released "if i did it" as "i did it: confessions of the killer." WTF? #
• 18:29 @joanwolk that may be so, but the if was not on the cover of the copies at the bookstore...or, it was shrunk so much that i couldn't see it. #
• 20:40 @joanwolk aaah. fooled by a creepy graphic design trick! #
• 23:26 so tired. #

don't blame me, blame loudtwitter.

cohesion? what's that?

foofy attorney makes a great point about DRM. go read.

in other news...well, there isn't a lot of other news. i've been busy, and neglecting this thing the last couple days. it's been the good kind of busy, though; i've had interesting work to do.

today is going to go by SO SLOWLY, though. i can feel it. tomorrow Rob is coming to town for NINE DAYS, and i can't wait...so, of course, time is going to participate in its conspiracy to make me feel like these last twenty-five hours before he comes in will drag along as long as possible.

can it be saturday, now?

poop!

generally, i do not enjoy reading about children or babies. i don't like children, so i prefer to spend my internet-surfing time reading things that do not pertain to children. makes sense, right?

so, i was extremely skeptical when taryn linked me to a blog entry where a webcomic writer was talking about her baby. i started reading, though...because things that taryn sends me are usually funny, and taryn knows that i like babies about as much as i like broccoli. i decided to give her the benefit of the doubt.

i'll be damned. i was laughing so hard that tears started running out of my eyes...and that was even before the pictures and the brilliant caption to them.

lesson of the day? my enjoyment of poop-related humour just might trump my hatred of small children. sometimes.

I AM RIGHT

it's not that often when you are reading a case where a judge is discussing the intent of a legal definition, and then footnotes to the fact that he helped write the statute in question.

is it just me, or does footnote 3 of this case just seem like Judge Lifland's nice way of saying, "FOOTNOTE: I WROTE THE LAW. I AM RIGHT."?

needless to say, this case was affirmed by the district court on appeal.

move to the beat

my printer hums along in 5/4 time.

the machinery makes a quick "ONE-two-three-ONE-two" with each sheet that it spits out. it's mesmerizing...as i stand there waiting for the entirety of 11 USC 1521 jurisprudence to come flying out of the printer¹, i just keep standing there, bobbing my head along to the rhythm.

ONE-two-three-ONE-two...ONE-two-three-ONE-two...ONE-two-three-ONE-two...ONE-two-three-ONE-two...ONE-two-three-ONE-two...


***
¹ no, i'm not exaggerating--but it's a three-year-old statute, so it's a fairly abbreviated jurisprudence.