Law School Discussion

Legal Reasoning

Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #320 on: June 10, 2008, 12:31:59 PM »
Hmmm..

Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #321 on: June 14, 2008, 01:18:37 PM »


Interesting username, butterfly! It reminded me right away the technical notion of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in Chaos Theory I read. Small variations of the initial condition of a non-linear dynamical system that may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system. So this is sometimes presented as esoteric behavior, but can be exhibited by very simple systems: for example, a ball placed at the crest of a hill might roll into any of several valleys depending on slight differences in initial position. The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that ultimately cause a tornado to appear (or prevent a tornado from appearing). The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.


These figures show two segments of the three-dimensional evolution of two trajectories (one in blue, the other in yellow) for the same period of time in the Lorenz attractor starting at two initial points that differ only by 10-5 in the x-coordinate. Initially, the two trajectories seem coincident, as indicated by the small difference between the z coordinate of the blue and yellow trajectories, but for t > 23 the difference is as large as the value of the trajectory. The final position of the cones indicates that the two trajectories are no longer coincident at t=30.
Recurrence, the approximate return of a system towards its initial conditions, together with sensitive dependence on initial conditions are the two main ingredients for chaotic motion. They have the practical consequence of making complex systems, such as the weather, difficult to predict past a certain time range (approximately a week in the case of weather).



In the movie "Run Lola Run" (Lola rennt in German-1998), the butterfly effect is represented clearly. There, minor and almost sub-conscious actions in everyday life can be seen to have gross and wide spread effects upon the future. For example, the fact that Lola bumps into someone instead of passing by may lead to a painful death after suffering paralysis. As such, seemingly inconsequential actions can be seen to have drastic long-term results. Lola's boyfriend Manni is trying to prove his loyalty to a gang boss. Manni's final task in a particular job is to deliver 100,000 Deutsche Mark (about 51,000 Euro at the final exchange rate) to his boss Ronnie. Everything goes wrong. Lola's moped is stolen and she is unable to transport Manni to the meeting place. After waiting for her Manni decides to use the metro. He accidentally leaves the bag, with its 100,000 Mark, in the underground after an encounter with a bum and two ticket-controllers. The money is then found by the homeless man. Manni realizes what he's done and soon makes a desperate phone call to Lola, asking her to think of something, to help him. If he does not have the money by the meeting at 12 noon, he will certainly be killed. Lola promises to get him the 100,000 Mark. Manni warns her that he will rob a supermarket on the street corner if Lola has not come in 20 minutes. Can Lola get him the money and save his life? It is at this point that the three sequential alternative realities begin.


First reality: Manni and Lola rob a supermarket.

First run

As Lola flees from her apartment, a punk with a dog is shown on the staircase. The dog growls at her, causing her to scream and sprint faster. With little time and no vehicle, Lola runs through the streets of Berlin to get to her father's bank, with the intention of asking him for the money. Lola's father refuses, and says that he feels unappreciated at home, and that he is leaving Lola and her mother for his mistress. He also announces that he is not Lola's real father. Lola runs to where Manni is anyway, passing an ambulance that stops in front of a crew of workers carrying a window pane. She arrives at the street corner a few moments too late; Manni's robbery is already in progress. Lola decides to help Manni rob the store. The two flee on foot afterwards but find themselves surrounded by police, and a nervous police officer accidentally shoots Lola in the chest after Manni throws the bag with its stolen money into the air. While Lola is dying, a sequence of her memory (or, possibly, her consciousness) is shown. In it, Lola and Manni are together talking in bed. Lola questions Manni about his love for her and remains unconvinced that it is genuine. The scene fades in a sea of red.

Second run

As she dies, the film suddenly starts again. It jumps back to the end of Lola's first phone call from Manni and again she tries to get the money from her father. This time, the punk with a dog in the stairway trips her. Lola arrives at the bank a few moments later because of her limp, which leaves enough time for her father's mistress to explain that she is pregnant by someone else. Lola hears more of the argument this time, and becomes infuriated. She then robs her father's bank with a gun grabbed from the security officer, and takes off with the money to meet Manni, and tries to hitch a ride from the red ambulance. But her distracting the driver makes the ambulance crash into the window pane, stopping it for a few seconds. When Lola reaches Manni he is run down by the same ambulance as he crosses the street to meet her. After Manni is killed by the ambulance another memory sequence ensues in which Lola and Manni's roles are reversed: Manni questions Lola about her love for him.

Third run

The story starts a third time. Lola is a split second faster, as she leaps over the punk on the steps and stops on Mr. Meyer's (her father's co-worker, as it now turns out) car long enough to prevent his accident in the first two realities. This allows Mr. Meyer to get to work and pick up Lola's father. As a result, Lola misses her father completely. Not knowing what to do, she decides to simply keep running. However her father, along with Mr. Meyer now end up in an apparently fatal car crash as the tramp with the money distracts the driver. Lola enters a casino, buys a single 100-mark chip, and finds a roulette table. She wins two consecutive bets on the number "20" (an echo of the 20 minutes of her journey), which gives Lola 127,000 Marks. More than sufficient money to help Manni, but she still must catch him in time. She hitches a ride in the same ambulance, unnoticed by the driver, as it stops in front of the crew with the window pane. The ambulance is carrying Schuster, the security guard from her father's bank who has apparently suffered a heart attack, as foreshadowed by his clutching his chest and his loud heartbeats in the Second Run earlier in the film. Although some English subtitles here have Lola saying "I'll stay with him," the actual German line is "Ich gehöre zu ihm", which translates as "I'm with him" or "I belong with him." She holds Schuster's hand, and moments later, his heart rate begins to return to normal. Meanwhile, Manni has borrowed a phone card from a blind woman (portrayed for the third time) to make a phone call as he futilely seeks a loan. As in the other sequences, he returns the phone card to the woman, but this time the woman gestures with her head, and Manni looks up to notice the tramp with his money riding by on a bicycle. Manni chases him down, recovers his money, gives him his pistol in exchange for the bag of cash and then delivers it to Ronnie. Lola arrives to find Manni stepping out of Ronnie's car and shaking his boss's hand. The movie ends with Manni asking Lola what is in the bag she is carrying.

Connections between the runs

Throughout the film, Lola bumps into people, talks to them, or simply passes them by. Details of that person's future are subsequently shown in a series of still frames. The futures are widely divergent from encounter to encounter. In one scenario, a woman whom Lola accidentally bumps into remains poor and kidnaps an unattended baby after her child was taken away by social workers. In another scenario the woman wins the lottery and becomes rich. In the third scenario, the woman experiences a religious conversion. Several moments in the film allude to a supernatural awareness of the characters. For example, in the first reality, a nervous Lola is shown by Manni how to use a gun by removing the safety, whereas she does this as if remembered from a previous experience in the second reality. Lola's encounters with Schuster also contain an air of the supernatural. The movie itself begins by posing questions pertaining to the unpredictability of the world and the unknowable nature of its meaning. It suggests that drastically disparate consequences can alter the fates of different people from a one second change in the time of one person's running.

Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #322 on: June 25, 2008, 03:28:45 PM »

In other words, Dundee, the key to success just isn't self-improvement ;)


That's not the point, cen! As each is a self-scripted star in their life story, each also has the power and freedom to pen their own demise. Living according to individual truth considerably reduces the possibility to self-defeat becoming a pattern moment-to-moment, year-to-year, and life-to-life. Not only must WHAT to do and WHY to do be self-determined, but HOW and WHEN too. Individual feelings are the only motivator and motivation that inflames and sustains drive, and returns rewards that are personally meaningful and, therefore, more confidence-building than money and applause. Otherewise, after reasoning and logical convincing, what walks out to try and do is SHOULD. When that happens, success and happiness are not individual, but predicated on the average of all who attempted before. SHOULD not only comes with set rules for doing and limits on reward, but it also requires the input of many to supervise and encourage when enthusiasm flags. IF attained, success and happiness rewards are owed many and spread wide and thin. On the other hand, failure is a burden that's carried by one, though trying and doing involved many. SHOULD always has a record of past successes attached, which more often destroys self-confidence than builds it. DOING FOR SHOULD and DOING FOR MUST are 180-degrees apart in terms of success/failure and happiness/unhappiness. The former is reasoned so unreasonableness becomes the motivation. The latter is decided by MUST which is already unreasonable, so the only motivation available is self. When doing for MUST, happiness is a daily companion straight through to the end, regardless of success.


You go Vigilance! 


Cool post indeed!

Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #323 on: June 30, 2008, 11:56:42 AM »

My God, ora!


lola, nice choice - your avatar - continue the good research work! 

Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #324 on: July 05, 2008, 07:09:47 PM »

After the Sunset, castrot?


I didn't like that movie - After the Sunset is the sort of movie that may not find its ideal audience until channel-surfing insomniacs discover it late some evening, long, long after sunset indeed.

Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #325 on: July 07, 2008, 11:40:32 AM »

I didn't like that movie - After the Sunset is the sort of movie that may not find its ideal audience until channel-surfing insomniacs discover it late some evening, long, long after sunset indeed.


And just before the sunrise ... LOL! ;)

Re: 'Mother' star goes full frontal for 'Sarah Marshall'
« Reply #326 on: July 10, 2008, 12:50:44 PM »

Sarah Marshall of Glendora didn't get a lot of notice. Until about three weeks ago. That's when hundreds of billboards started appearing in five cities, including L.A. They proclaimed, in black letters scrawled against a white background: "I'm So Over You, Sarah Marshall," "You Suck Sarah Marshall," "My Mother Always Hated You, Sarah Marshall," and "You Do Look Fat in Those Jeans, Sarah Marshall."

The billboards are part of a marketing campaign for the comedy "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," from Universal Pictures, about a dumped boyfriend trying to get over his ex. The animosity toward their fictional namesake has brought the real Sarah Marshalls -- who include an advertising student in Texas, a special-education teacher in Connecticut and a high school senior in Glendora -- an outpouring of concern. "They're everywhere, and they're so annoying," said Sarah Marshall the Glendora student, who lives three blocks from one of the billboards. Adults called her parents to ask if she was the target of a hate campaign. "I wish they specified that it's a movie," she said. Ad student Sarah Marshall of Fort Worth, Texas, one of 276 Sarah Marshalls on Facebook, said: "I got a lot of e-mails and phone calls asking if my boyfriend and I were OK."

But don't expect any sympathy cards from the Universal marketing department.


Here we go

From Ernest Borgnine in "Marty" to Jon Favreau in "Swingers," Hollywood has long portrayed sensitive men humbled at the feet of cold-hearted women. But never has a guy been put down quite like Jason Segel in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall." In his breakout role, Segel reveals his knack for a raw vulnerability that would be depressing if it wasn't so funny.

And "reveals" is the operative word.

In the opening scenes, Segel's character misinterprets the reason for his girlfriend's urgent visit. Instead of a roll in the hay -- and he has completely disrobed in preparation -- Sarah Marshall has come to dump him. Utterly distraught, he doesn't cover up for Marshall -- or for the camera. In several full frontal shots, Segel completely bares himself. The R-rated gag is already the most-talked about scene in the film. It's culled from an experience the 28-year-old Segel -- who wrote "Sarah Marshall" -- had several years ago. He says it's presented "almost verbatim" in the movie. "This naked breakup commenced and, honest to God -- maybe this is part of the problem -- all I kept thinking was, 'This is ... hilarious,' " Segel recalls.

In a recent interview on the set of "How I Met Your Mother," where he is a co-star, the 6-foot-4 Segel is much like his characters suggest he would be: good-natured and a little sheepish. "He kind of has a gentle giant thing going on," says "Sarah Marshall" director Nicholas Stoller, who's also a close friend of Segel's. "His eyes naturally look hurt, but he's not actually a depressed guy. He's a very positive, happy guy." A L.A. native, Segel was "noticed" when Paramount's president of casting happened to be in the audience of his high-school production of Edward Albee's "The Zoo Story," which Segel says he was putting on "for almost no reason at all." After a few small film roles, Segel's career began in earnest when Judd Apatow cast him in "Freaks and Geeks," the revered high school comedy that was canceled in 2000 after one season. It has since established a fervent cult following, and was a foundational experience for Apatow, Segel and much of the young cast, which included Seth Rogen and James Franco. As Nick Andopolis, Segel was both exceptionally earnest and terribly awkward -- trying to impress girls with his 29-piece drum set, for example. In Apatow's next TV show, the similarly short-lived "Undeclared" (2001-2002), Segel played a lovelorn long-distance boyfriend.

"It's always funny to watch Jason get beat up on and suffer," says Apatow, who produced "Sarah Marshall." "He's just fun to watch feel pain and that's always what made me laugh about him." Says Segel: "Judd and I really collided on the idea that, for some reason, I'm able to remain likable while getting awfully close to the creepy line. It's one of my strange skills, so we've definitely cultivated that for 10 years now." After "Undeclared," Segel was out of work until Apatow's fortunes skyrocketed with 2005's "The 40-Year-Old Virgin." On a Thursday soon after the film opened, the two went to a Laker game. Apatow informed him: " 'Listen, I can get movies made now. Are you writing?'" Segel told him about "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," sent him an outline the next day, and received contracts from Universal by Monday. Still shaking his head, Segel says, "It's ridiculous. It's nuts."

In the film, Segel's character attempts to get over Marshall by taking a trip to a resort in Hawaii, where, coincidentally, Marshall is staying with her new boyfriend, a British rocker played by Russell Brand. Many of the supporting roles are filed by Apatow regulars -- Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill, Bill Hader -- but the new love interest, a hotel receptionist, is played by Mila Kunis ("That '70s Show"). It's received strong reviews and been heavily promoted by the studio, thanks largely to Apatow's track record. (It took the No. 2 slot at the weekend box office.) Besides "Virgin," he produced "Superbad" and directed "Knocked Up" -- in which Segel played Rogen's friend, the aggressive and cheesy seducer. "My character in 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' couldn't be more different than my character in 'Knocked Up,' but sadly, I think there's some of me in both," says Segel. "It really depends on how much I've had to drink." Progressing from bit player to box-office comic star like Steve Carell ("Virgin") and Rogen ("Knocked Up," "Superbad") won't be easy. Segel has faith in the film, though, and besides, he's already swimming in new projects. He's currently filming "I Love You, Man," co-starring Rudd; he's writing a script titled "Five-Year Engagement" that Stoller will direct and Apatow will produce; and he's writing a script with Stoller for a new Muppet movie for Disney. (Segel counts Kermit, "the original Tom Hanks, the everyman," as a major inspiration.) At any rate, Segel doesn't expect to run out of real-life material for his films. "I'm filled with horribly awkward moments," he says. "It's probably why I don't sleep very well."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/21/film.jasonsegel.ap/index.html


Hmm, I see...


Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #327 on: July 10, 2008, 01:04:52 PM »

Sarah Marshall of Glendora didn't get a lot of notice. Until about three weeks ago. That's when hundreds of billboards started appearing in five cities, including L.A. They proclaimed, in black letters scrawled against a white background: "I'm So Over You, Sarah Marshall," "You Suck Sarah Marshall," "My Mother Always Hated You, Sarah Marshall," and "You Do Look Fat in Those Jeans, Sarah Marshall."

The billboards are part of a marketing campaign for the comedy "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," from Universal Pictures, about a dumped boyfriend trying to get over his ex. The animosity toward their fictional namesake has brought the real Sarah Marshalls -- who include an advertising student in Texas, a special-education teacher in Connecticut and a high school senior in Glendora -- an outpouring of concern. "They're everywhere, and they're so annoying," said Sarah Marshall the Glendora student, who lives three blocks from one of the billboards. Adults called her parents to ask if she was the target of a hate campaign. "I wish they specified that it's a movie," she said. Ad student Sarah Marshall of Fort Worth, Texas, one of 276 Sarah Marshalls on Facebook, said: "I got a lot of e-mails and phone calls asking if my boyfriend and I were OK."

But don't expect any sympathy cards from the Universal marketing department.


Here we go

From Ernest Borgnine in "Marty" to Jon Favreau in "Swingers," Hollywood has long portrayed sensitive men humbled at the feet of cold-hearted women. But never has a guy been put down quite like Jason Segel in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall." In his breakout role, Segel reveals his knack for a raw vulnerability that would be depressing if it wasn't so funny.

And "reveals" is the operative word.

In the opening scenes, Segel's character misinterprets the reason for his girlfriend's urgent visit. Instead of a roll in the hay -- and he has completely disrobed in preparation -- Sarah Marshall has come to dump him. Utterly distraught, he doesn't cover up for Marshall -- or for the camera. In several full frontal shots, Segel completely bares himself. The R-rated gag is already the most-talked about scene in the film. It's culled from an experience the 28-year-old Segel -- who wrote "Sarah Marshall" -- had several years ago. He says it's presented "almost verbatim" in the movie. "This naked breakup commenced and, honest to God -- maybe this is part of the problem -- all I kept thinking was, 'This is ... hilarious,' " Segel recalls.

In a recent interview on the set of "How I Met Your Mother," where he is a co-star, the 6-foot-4 Segel is much like his characters suggest he would be: good-natured and a little sheepish. "He kind of has a gentle giant thing going on," says "Sarah Marshall" director Nicholas Stoller, who's also a close friend of Segel's. "His eyes naturally look hurt, but he's not actually a depressed guy. He's a very positive, happy guy." A L.A. native, Segel was "noticed" when Paramount's president of casting happened to be in the audience of his high-school production of Edward Albee's "The Zoo Story," which Segel says he was putting on "for almost no reason at all." After a few small film roles, Segel's career began in earnest when Judd Apatow cast him in "Freaks and Geeks," the revered high school comedy that was canceled in 2000 after one season. It has since established a fervent cult following, and was a foundational experience for Apatow, Segel and much of the young cast, which included Seth Rogen and James Franco. As Nick Andopolis, Segel was both exceptionally earnest and terribly awkward -- trying to impress girls with his 29-piece drum set, for example. In Apatow's next TV show, the similarly short-lived "Undeclared" (2001-2002), Segel played a lovelorn long-distance boyfriend.

"It's always funny to watch Jason get beat up on and suffer," says Apatow, who produced "Sarah Marshall." "He's just fun to watch feel pain and that's always what made me laugh about him." Says Segel: "Judd and I really collided on the idea that, for some reason, I'm able to remain likable while getting awfully close to the creepy line. It's one of my strange skills, so we've definitely cultivated that for 10 years now." After "Undeclared," Segel was out of work until Apatow's fortunes skyrocketed with 2005's "The 40-Year-Old Virgin." On a Thursday soon after the film opened, the two went to a Laker game. Apatow informed him: " 'Listen, I can get movies made now. Are you writing?'" Segel told him about "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," sent him an outline the next day, and received contracts from Universal by Monday. Still shaking his head, Segel says, "It's ridiculous. It's nuts."

In the film, Segel's character attempts to get over Marshall by taking a trip to a resort in Hawaii, where, coincidentally, Marshall is staying with her new boyfriend, a British rocker played by Russell Brand. Many of the supporting roles are filed by Apatow regulars -- Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill, Bill Hader -- but the new love interest, a hotel receptionist, is played by Mila Kunis ("That '70s Show"). It's received strong reviews and been heavily promoted by the studio, thanks largely to Apatow's track record. (It took the No. 2 slot at the weekend box office.) Besides "Virgin," he produced "Superbad" and directed "Knocked Up" -- in which Segel played Rogen's friend, the aggressive and cheesy seducer. "My character in 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' couldn't be more different than my character in 'Knocked Up,' but sadly, I think there's some of me in both," says Segel. "It really depends on how much I've had to drink." Progressing from bit player to box-office comic star like Steve Carell ("Virgin") and Rogen ("Knocked Up," "Superbad") won't be easy. Segel has faith in the film, though, and besides, he's already swimming in new projects. He's currently filming "I Love You, Man," co-starring Rudd; he's writing a script titled "Five-Year Engagement" that Stoller will direct and Apatow will produce; and he's writing a script with Stoller for a new Muppet movie for Disney. (Segel counts Kermit, "the original Tom Hanks, the everyman," as a major inspiration.) At any rate, Segel doesn't expect to run out of real-life material for his films. "I'm filled with horribly awkward moments," he says. "It's probably why I don't sleep very well."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/21/film.jasonsegel.ap/index.html


Hmm, I see...



Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #328 on: July 16, 2008, 08:45:46 AM »
I see you've posted twice within some minutes, hilt -- you had problems logging in and out?

Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #329 on: July 18, 2008, 05:18:29 AM »
I guess so, copula - sometimes the site does not allow you to log in no matter what! You've to set up another account risking being called an 'imposter' since any one can use the previous poster's username and avatar in order to somehow give the impression s/he is indeed the real thing.