Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?  (Read 131570 times)

beyond aurora

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
New Yorkers stuck with syrupy smell, but can breathe easy
« Reply #520 on: February 05, 2009, 09:06:47 PM »

I believe DAT's PAT specific questions types are these ones

  • angle discrimination
  • block counting
  • paper folding
  • form development
  • two forms of object visualization


The Keyholes present a challenge I would say:



e.g., you are asked which hole the 'key' on the left will fit through. The object on the left can be rotated in any direction prior to entering the hole, but can not be rotated while going through. Also, the hole must be an exact fit for the key.


What the hell is going on in this thread

I was expecting to read the woes of naive people who jumped head first into law school without realizing what it entailed....

Instead I got some weirdass diagrams...entertaining nonetheless


I wouldn't blame them for posting this crap, santropez -- I mean, you can find weird stuff even on CNN -- take a look at this one LOL ;)

New Yorkers stuck with syrupy smell, but can breathe easy

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The source of a mysterious maple syrup-like smell that has periodically blanketed New York is not a particularly aromatic pancake house but a New Jersey factory involved in the processing of fenugreek seeds, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Thursday. The sweet aroma first descended upon Manhattan and northern New Jersey in October 2005, initially triggering several building evacuations as well as concern the scent was physically harmful. Authorities from the Office of Emergency Management soon concluded it posed no danger to the public. The odor made several return appearances in subsequent years, each time confounding nostrils before vanishing as perplexingly as it arrived.

Comparing information about local wind speed, wind direction and air humidity against the locations of citizen complaints about the smell, officials from the city's Department of Environmental Protection narrowed down the potential source to four factories in northern New Jersey that produce food additives and fragrances. Last week, when several dozen residents of Upper Manhattan called to complain about the smell, the environmental department, having developed a new evidence gathering procedure, gathered air samples from each suspected source in canisters. Tests revealed the pungent perpetrator of that incident was a Hudson County facility owned by Frutorom, a company that develops and manufactures flavors for the food, fragrance and pharmaceutical industries.

The specific chemical agents responsible for the scent are esters, compounds "created by the reaction between an alcohol and an acid" during the processing of fenugreek seeds, according to Bloomberg. Toasted fenugreek seeds are often used in the production of artificial syrups and in the cuisines of a number of cultures. The mayor said New Jersey officials, who cooperated with New York in the investigation, had concluded that Frutorom had not violated any rules. He said New Yorkers will have to tolerate the syrup smell's occasional return, noting that it's a relatively benign odor. "All things considered I can think of a lot of things worse than maple syrup," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/05/NY.syrup.smell/index.html

Randomnity

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Residency "MATCH Formula" GUIDE for IMGs
« Reply #521 on: February 05, 2009, 10:10:41 PM »

I do not know what the deal is with medical schools and residency programs in the US, but in many countries they do not allow you to complete residencies 5+ years after you have graduated.
 

Quite the opposite, zotzschca, I would tend to believe other countries are even more generous than the States when it comes to the actual age physicians are allowed to enter residency programs (specialize, that is): a neighbor of mine from the Czech Republic told me they can start one there before their 35th birthday.

BikePilot

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
    • AOL Instant Messenger - joshthebikepilot
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #522 on: February 07, 2009, 10:44:01 AM »
I'm half way though and happy as as can be:)
HLS 2010

Quadro

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #523 on: February 08, 2009, 12:55:07 PM »

[...] Instead of exploiting the slave, the master here tries to take care of the worker so that the worker can continue to work. This allows both master and slave to work for the master's master, work itself. But what is crucial about this is that the "taking care of" here or "feeding" of the slave is only feeding the slave such that the worker's work -- and not the worker himself -- can continue. The emphasis is upon work abstracted from the existence of the slave that provides the work. Thus the slave sinks below the conditions that he would be under if he were wrapped up in the feudal master/slave dialectic, because the master here is not concerned with his existence -- the master is "incompetent to assure the continued existence" of the slave, as Marx puts it. The slave cannot properly be a slave under capitalism. That is, it cannot be assured as to whether he will exist as a slave: his bare existence is threatened in the face of the abstract labor-power he temporarily embodies.

[...] The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.


In other words, capitalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It creates its own grave-diggers by creating a class with interests diametrically opposed to its own, bringing them together and teaching them how to cooperate. The proletariat then comes to realize that it is a class that has nothing to lose, but everything to gain, by revolting against and overthrowing the bourgeoisie.
Don't worry about it. Talk about it.

caret

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #524 on: February 09, 2009, 08:24:22 PM »


Hegel's dialectic


Two young followers of Hegel, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, took Hegel's ideas and transformed them into a philosophical tool for analyzing history, nature, and making social change. They kept the idea of dialectics -- motion and change coming about through opposing forces -- but turned Hegel "upside down." They argued that thought is a manifestation of the natural world -- that our thoughts flow from our experiences and the material world. [...]
 



Now Marx adopted Hegel's science of logic, his dialectic, which shows that development takes place through the working out of the struggle between contradictory opposites ( the unity, conflict, interpenetration and transformation of opposites). But Marx rejected Hegel's view that the changes taking place in the world were the product of the mind of God.
 
Marx turned Hegel's idealist dialectics right-side up. He argued that the laws governing the contradictory development of nature, which evolved into human society and its thought processes are reflected in the mind. Thought reflects the movement of matter rather than the other way round. The everyday experience of the struggle for survival leads to scientific study which discovers these laws and enables us to intervene and change the world.

Pinecrest

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Australian fires toll passes 100 ?
« Reply #525 on: February 12, 2009, 02:00:15 PM »

2. No one really agrees on his theory of fire, some co-opted it for their own use


Go Mina Go!




Speaking of fire, are you guys following the horrific Australian fires story?





The death toll from fires in southern Australia has reached at least 108, the worst in the country's history. Thousands of firefighters, aided by the army, are battling several major bush fires, and the number of dead is expected to rise as fires are put out. Arsonists responsible for lighting the fires could be charged with murder, police have said. Entire towns in Victoria state were destroyed as fires were fanned by extreme temperatures and wind. Temperatures are dropping now, but officials fear they will not be able to get the fires under control until there is substantial rain. "We could still have a lot worse," said Sharon Smee of Victoria's Country Fire Authority. "There's still hot spots out there and there's a lot of people who are really exhausted and tired."

'Absolutely horrific'

Firefighters have been battling against what are described as the worst conditions in Victoria's history. Witnesses described seeing walls of flames four storeys high, trees exploding and the skies raining ash, as fires tore across 30,000 hectares (115 sq miles) of forests, farmland and towns. John Coleridge from the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne said most of those rescued from the fires had suffered burns. "They range from minor, just the soles of their feet running away through embers, to people who've got major, life-threatening burns," he said. "And unfortunately there are some people who will not survive." The BBC's Nick Bryant in Sydney said police suspect that in at least one case fires have been restarted by arsonists after being extinguished by firefighters. New South Wales Premier Nathan Rees said arsonists faced a maximum 25 years' jail. "We will throw the book at you if you are caught," he was quoted as saying by the AFP news agency. "Some of these fires have started in localities that could only be by hand, it could not be natural causes," Victoria state Police Deputy Commissioner Kieran Walshe was quoted as saying by AFP. He said there would be a "full, thorough investigation".

At least 700 homes have been destroyed in Victoria and about 14,000 homes are without power. Most of the people who died came from a cluster of small towns to the north of Melbourne. The BBC's Phil Mercer in Sydney said many charred bodies had been found in cars. It is thought they were trying to escape the fires but were overtaken by their "sheer speed and ferocity". Some cars appeared to have crashed into one another as people tried to flee the flames. Victoria Country Fire Authority said the death toll had risen to 108. At least 18 people were reported to have died in the town of Kinglake, four at Wandong, four at St Andrews and three at Strathewen. One Strathewen resident told ABC local radio how people had witnessed "absolutely horrific" scenes as they had helped battle the flames. "The school's gone, the hall's gone... some people left it too late. We've lost friends, and we're just waiting for more - children, loved ones," she said.

The town of Marysville, with about 500 residents, was said to have been burned to the ground, though most residents managed to shelter from the blaze in a local park. In Kinglake, where witnesses said most of the town was destroyed, one woman quoted by the Melbourne Age described the arrival of a badly burnt man and his daughter seeking shelter on a patch of open ground. "He had skin hanging off him everywhere and his little girl was burnt, but not as badly as her dad, and he just came down and he said 'Look, I've lost my wife, I've lost my other kid, I just need you to save [my daughter],'" she said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7877178.stm


peri

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #526 on: February 12, 2009, 08:32:53 PM »

American culture is an extraverted thinking culture, but it also has a secondary preference for introverted sensing, types that are interested in commerce. The USA is a consumer society and Americans like commercials, advertising, promotions, sales, etc. The TV infomercials are filled with get-rich, start-your-own-business, and home business programs like how to flip properties, medical billing from home, multi-level marketing, etc. Some people say that English is the language of commerce; well, USA is a nation of commerce. Why do so many people want to come here? Sure it's that freedom thing, but wouldn't you agree, it's mostly for the money?


Can "consumer society" accurately describe the American polity? Does it not exist in actuality a priority of producer over consumer interests? It is obvious to anyone with eyes to see and bodies to be comforted. Contemplate the design of most airplanes and airports and explain how high consumer/user interests rank in the society's priorities. Enter an airport and sit, sometimes for hours, with 1,000 other consumers of airline services in a stifling waiting room with a 12-foot ceiling; or wedge yourself into a 15-by-18-inch seat, where your neighbor's backrest protrudes within a foot of your chest; or stand anxiously by one of the 4-5 toilets provided onboard to serve 400 passengers and try to imagine how lucky you are to live in "a consumer society." Nor do the rules seem consumer-friendly that allow overbooked airlines to bump passengers waiting to board; or to deny a passenger the right to switch to another airline without further charges when various troubles on the booked airline lead to many hours of delay, and sometimes cause cancellation too late for a passenger to find a reasonable alternative mode of travel to say nothing of the costs of missing a connecting flight.

How consumer friendly are those gas stations (once called service stations) that require consumers to pump their own gas or else pay an outsize premium per gallon? And can there be more frustrating moments in a working day than fighting with an electronic "pay station" in parking garages and lots that employ no attendants at all ("cost savings") and where the often balky machine must produce an entry ticket; and then later process the parking slip to permit exiting?

How are consumer interests served when personal telephone records are legally available for a price and for sale at a profit? (Locatecell.com is only one corporation that legally mines and then sells such information to any business or government agency that cares to pay for it.) Consumers of cell-phone services come last when producers see profit opportunities.

How well are consumer interests served when the law allows pushers of products to intrude at will upon our telephones, Internet, and fax machines? Or to pop ads onto television screens, more or less continuously, during an ongoing drama, sitcom, or sports program; or onto a computer screen, sometimes freezing a word-processing session? Even national public radio and television stations, partly supported by consumer subscriptions, now present several minutes of ads each hour, necessitated by cuts in congressional support. More than 80 years ago, that old radical Herbert Hoover, then secretary of commerce when radio was new, declared, "It is unconceivable that we should allow so great a possibility for service to be drowned in advertising." How quaint!

Consumers are themselves to blame, seeing themselves first as producers rather than consumers. If there are many who would complain, the media which are dependent on producers' ads are not likely to give them much time or space. But who's complaining?

by train

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Hegel After Derrida
« Reply #527 on: February 14, 2009, 04:53:31 PM »

Two thousand years later, Professor Hegel found in Heraclitus' swirling vortex of the unity of opposites the kernel of a new 'world philosophy', the origins of 'speculative logic', and the historical notion of perpetual change. [...]

At any rate, Hegel's battle between thesis and antithesis, searching for synthesis, led directly both to Marx's dialectical materialism and to the fascist idealogy of the purifying powers of conflict and war. [...]
 


Hegel's dialectic


We will never be done, says Derrida, with the reading of Hegel. When we think we have gotten beyond Hegel in trumpeting our escape from the strictures of reason, teleology, metanarratives, idealism, we are most Hegelian. Yet we frequently find, even in the most theoretically naive works, claims to have "deconstructed" prevalent interpretations or notions of reason, identity, consciousness, nature and the natural, morality, history, and so forth. Such trends may lead us to believe that we are done with Hegel, but, as Barnett says and this volume demonstrates, not only does Hegel define "the modernity that our postmodern era seeks to escape," but there is a Hegel that we have yet to examine. Just what deconstruction is still remains obscure for many. Sometimes confused with critique, at other times reduced to the absurdity of being unconcerned with truth, deconstruction has entered the vocabulary as something of a ghost, to borrow a figure from Derrida frequently invoked in this collection: its presence is felt but its features remain obscure. One reason for this ghostly presence is our refusal, or inability, to confront Hegel, whom Derrida calls in "Of Grammatology" "the last philosopher of the book and the first thinker of writing." Hegel, says Barnett, "taught philosophers to examine all fields of knowledge as quasi-autonomous language games... Yet Hegel emphasized the cultural and historical specificity of language games; he also devoted a good deal of his thought to dissecting the internal logic of various language games" These games, then, are not mere games. Hegel narrates the unfolding of spirit in world history and its culmination in the Absolute, but he also historicizes reason, charting its contradictions and limitations. He is both the philosopher of unitary reason and the thinker of difference. Ultimately, it is the role of the negative in speculative idealism, the otherness operating within reason, that makes Hegel's philosophy the limit that defines the modernity our postmodernity remains within.

In its confrontation with speculative idealism and the Aufhebung (a term that designates the negation, conservation, and elevation of a previous stage in consciousness), deconstruction is "to disrupt the virtual self-realization of onto-theology in speculative idealism." This disruption is not critique, the investigation of the criteria for philosophy, for it is not a work of making distinctions and judgments (in a Kantian sense) but a questioning of these very categories. Deconstruction operates from within the text, responds to its irreducible alterity. If Hegel's text, the "Phenomenology of Spirit" in particular, can be characterized as the totalizing thought of absolute spirit, Derrida's "text" can be defined as structurally infinite, a network without boundaries or closure. Derrida's "text" opens the self-identity implied in the traditional notion of the text by locating an unsublatable remainder that makes totalization impossible. The text, therefore, is governed by the traits of referral that make representation, self-reflection, and reference possible (impossibilities). This remainder reveals that the text, in this special sense, is already inhabited by its non-phenomenal other, its ghost, which both situates deconstruction within and against Hegelian speculative philosophy.

When Derrida called Hegel "the last philosopher of the book and the first thinker of writing," he indicated that Hegel was both the culmination of Western metaphysics and the beginning of its deconstruction. Barnett says as much when he writes, "Hegel's text, in its performance of the thinking of difference, comprises the enabling condition of the strategies of deconstruction." If we are to overcome Hegel (and modernity), then we must inhabit him -- which we do, whether we know it or not. And to overcome him is to repeat him, with a difference. This contradictory structure is to be found already in Hegel: insofar as the truth of consciousness is self-consciousness, consciousness is already self-consciousness. Absolute self-relation is attained only when consciousness has returned from its other back to itself as self-consciousness. But this pathway is never smooth; it is marked by disruption, relativism, and plurality. Christianity, for instance, is the absolute religion but must be superseded by philosophy, Absolute Knowing; yet, the Aufhebung of religion into philosophy is disrupted by what makes it possible, the holy family. In short, we are confronted with two ways of reading Hegel, which will amount to two ways of reading Derrida. Either Hegel's text needs to be deconstructed or it is already deconstruction; either Derrida's reading of Hegel is an intervention that disrupts the system or it reveals a Hegel who is a thinker of difference as well as the philosopher of Absolute Knowledge. Our either/or is more properly a both/and: what unites these essays is a strategy of reading that asks, what remains in Hegel's text after the holocaust of Absolute Knowledge/after the text is deconstructed? What remains is the necessity of reading Hegel for these remains, that is, for what does not allow itself to be superseded or appropriated in the name of Absolute Knowledge. The Absolute is fissured, divided or fractured, like the columns in Derrida's most sustained reading of Hegel, Glas.

In asking why Hegel figures so prominently in Glas when Derrida's analysis of the family and phallocentrism points to psychoanalysis, Suzanne Gearhart proposes that the Aufhebung is equivalent to Freud's concept of repression, which cannot be understood in terms of what is repressed "but only in terms of repression itself" as an ongoing process that serves the system of idealization; it does not merely forget or suppress but "also creates signification and value." The Aufhebung is the equivalent of repression insofar as it constitutes rational self-consciousness but is itself prerational, as is revealed in Derrida's analysis of the Hegelian family. Gearhart advises us to address the question of sexuality or gender from the concept of repression or else we lapse into a pre-Freudian logic of fetishism.



In "White Mythology," which appears in Derrida's book "Margins of Philosophy" Derrida shows how philosophy has always tried to push literary language to the margins. Philosophical language is supposedly free of rhetoric and metaphor. Thus philosophers have long dreamt of a pure language that escapes the frivolities of literary writing. Philosophers, trying to purge philosophical language of metaphor, push it to the margins. Derrida, however, sees this as one more attempt to repress writing in favor of a language of presence -- a language that can present the Truth. The dream of such a clean, proper language -- without metaphor -- has been philosophy's big wet dream. Derrida calls this dream "White Muthology," and shows that all the concepts that philosophers have used to push metaphor to the margins of philosophy are themselves metaphorical. He continues to blur the line between solemn truth-seeking Philosophy and playful, frivolous Literature in another important work -- "Glas." In that horrible German language glas means knell, like the tolling or knelling of a bell! And for Derrida's intent this knell marks the death of meaning!

It seems as though Derrida's intent is to do away with the notion that a reader can discover an author's intent. In fact, Derrida says he is attempting to alientate "all readers who believe in literature or anything." Each page in "Glas" has two columns, like two corners of a boxing or wrestling ring. "Glas" features Philosophy in the left hand column, and Literature in the right hand column. Philosophy is represented by Hegel and his totalitarian quest for Absolute Knowledge. Derrida plays upon the sound of Hegel's name, turning it into aigle (Eagle) -- an Eagle soaring ever upwards in its search for Absolute Knowledge. This "Eagle" ascends upon the winds of dialectic. Hegel believed that knowledge proceeds through a process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. For instance, if the idea of pure Being is the thesis, then Nothing is thye anti-thesis. They are opposites that are brought together by the synthesis, which is beyond them both. For Hegel, the Mind is like a soaring Eagle that knows itself through this process of dialectic.

by train

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #528 on: February 14, 2009, 05:14:06 PM »
Now, how could one possibly make an argument against Hegel's dialectical logic? Because any opposition to it would just be an anti-thesis, which would then yield to another synthesis, which transcends both thesis and antithesis. That's one of the main problems that Hegel's dialectical logic poses to philosophers. It tends to be a cannibal -- eating up any opposing views by turning them into anti-thesis. So in one corner we have this Super-Eagle, the Cannibal Philosophy of Dialectical Logic that eats up opposition. In the other column (or corner) Derrida gives us the homosexual, perverted novelist, jailbird, thief, iconoclast, nihilist con-artist Jean Genet, who is totally unconcerned with Truth or Absolute Knowledge. Derrida uses Genet as a ploy to attack Hegel because he knows that Hegel cannot be attacked from the front -- straight on. Rather Derrida lets Genet parody or mimic the dialectical mode of the Hegelian Uber-Eagle, spiraling ever upwards in the search for Pure Knowledge. This upward spiral is the circular, endless process of thesis, antithesis, synthesis -- thesis, antithesis, synthesis -- etc.

Whereas Derrida plays upon the sound of "Hegel" to make him an Eagle, he plays on the sound of Genet's name to come up with with genet, a kind of flower. And Genet's flower power is his use of puns and metaphors that blossom in his prose as it mimics the Eagle's upward spiral. Genet's sentences wind themselves around a direction, like ivy along a truncated column. His metaphors and puns spiral upwards in a dizzying flight of meaning that does not come to rest in a synthesis -- but ascends ever upwards into nothingness. Beacuse Genet (and Glas) do not directly oppose Hegel's dialectical logic -- but mimic and parody it -- they cannot be cannibalized by it. In this interchange between the two columns of text -- representing Philosophy and Literature -- "Glas" unfolds a new terrain that is neither Literature and Philosophy, nor Literature nor Philosophy.

paine

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #529 on: February 18, 2009, 10:30:24 PM »

Can "consumer society" accurately describe the American polity? Does it not exist in actuality a priority of producer over consumer interests? It is obvious to anyone with eyes to see and bodies to be comforted. Contemplate the design of most airplanes and airports and explain how high consumer/user interests rank in the society's priorities. Enter an airport and sit, sometimes for hours, with 1,000 other consumers of airline services in a stifling waiting room with a 12-foot ceiling; or wedge yourself into a 15-by-18-inch seat, where your neighbor's backrest protrudes within a foot of your chest; or stand anxiously by one of the 4-5 toilets provided onboard to serve 400 passengers and try to imagine how lucky you are to live in "a consumer society." Nor do the rules seem consumer-friendly that allow overbooked airlines to bump passengers waiting to board; or to deny a passenger the right to switch to another airline without further charges when various troubles on the booked airline lead to many hours of delay, and sometimes cause cancellation too late for a passenger to find a reasonable alternative mode of travel to say nothing of the costs of missing a connecting flight.

How consumer friendly are those gas stations (once called service stations) that require consumers to pump their own gas or else pay an outsize premium per gallon? And can there be more frustrating moments in a working day than fighting with an electronic "pay station" in parking garages and lots that employ no attendants at all ("cost savings") and where the often balky machine must produce an entry ticket; and then later process the parking slip to permit exiting?

How are consumer interests served when personal telephone records are legally available for a price and for sale at a profit? (Locatecell.com is only one corporation that legally mines and then sells such information to any business or government agency that cares to pay for it.) Consumers of cell-phone services come last when producers see profit opportunities.

How well are consumer interests served when the law allows pushers of products to intrude at will upon our telephones, Internet, and fax machines? Or to pop ads onto television screens, more or less continuously, during an ongoing drama, sitcom, or sports program; or onto a computer screen, sometimes freezing a word-processing session? Even national public radio and television stations, partly supported by consumer subscriptions, now present several minutes of ads each hour, necessitated by cuts in congressional support. More than 80 years ago, that old radical Herbert Hoover, then secretary of commerce when radio was new, declared, "It is unconceivable that we should allow so great a possibility for service to be drowned in advertising." How quaint!

Consumers are themselves to blame, seeing themselves first as producers rather than consumers. If there are many who would complain, the media which are dependent on producers' ads are not likely to give them much time or space. But who's complaining?


Great post, perci!