Monthly Archives: January 2011

Server Move

Updating siteI’m moving to a new and faster and (slightly) more expensive server. Or at least I’m trying to. Things might get odd for a bit until the dust settles…..

Then the DNS change will have to propagate to where you are, and so on.  Bottom line: if you made a comment any time after about 7pm Eastern time, there’s some danger it may not be there tomorrow.   And there’s some danger everything will be just fine.

Basically, WordPress puts a bigger load on the server than MT did (but is easier for me to manage), and in the past  couple of days first Yahoo then the Library of Congress decided to crawl the site from head to toe.  Meanwhile, yesterday the spam hit the roof, and who knows something else probably happened too, so things slowed to a crawl.   I haven’t the patience so I’m throwing hardware at the problem.

Posted in Discourse.net | Comments Off on Server Move

If Wishes Were Horses

If I could pick one idea to purge from the American psyche, it would be the idea that rich people are special, magical wealth leprechauns who must be allowed to pursue their interests without hindrance lest the entire economy collapse.

via Crooks and Liars, C&L Opening Bell: Legalizing fraud.

Posted in Econ & Money | 1 Comment

Any Reason to Let Silverlight Profile Me?

According to Microsoft’s Silverlight 4 Privacy Statement,

Disabling Silverlight Unique Client Identification

A registry key HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Silverlight can be created with the Value Name EnableClientInformation with a Value Type of REG_DWORD and given a value of 0x00000000. This sets the machine to never provide the unique identifier associated with the Unique Client Identification feature to any Web site regardless of the DRM setting.

Any downside to this?

Posted in Internet | Comments Off on Any Reason to Let Silverlight Profile Me?

An Inconvenient Text: Will House Members Obey the Constitution They Read Aloud?

Peter Shane has a great question for GOP House members written as they prepared to read the Constitution aloud at the opening session of the new Congress (a stunt I’m entirely for, by the way — the Constitution should be read aloud much more often, I say).

Peter argues, I think correctly, that the Incompatibility Clause of the Constitution (Section 6, Paragraph 2, of Article I: “no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”) means that Congresspersons cannot be serving officers or members of the Reserves. He applies this to Rep. Allen West, who is a retired Lt. Colonel. If Rep. West in the Retired Reserves, then I guess Peter is right; but if he’s not, then the fact that by statute Rep. West might theoretically be recalled to active duty due to his former service cannot be held against him.

Incidentally, as regards the Incompatibility Clause and the Reserves, I think the policy issues are quite mixed at best. On the one hand, there is a real possibility for exactly the sort of manipulation that the Clause is designed to prevent — sweetheart assignments, promotions (and thus pay increases) to Congresspersons by an administration seeking to curry favor with them. On the other hand, there’s surely a benefit to having Members of Congress subject to the same obligations as the Reservists whose lives their decisions effect in so many ways, plus the value of rubbing shoulders with an important constituency. Whatever my policy preferences, however, the Constitutional text looks absolute to me.

Note, incidentally, that I think there wouldn’t be a problem with a Member of Congress being an NCO in the Reserve as I do not think that NCOs are “Officers” in the Constitutional sense, and in any case the level of cushiness is in most cases not going to be as great as for commissioned officers.

Posted in Law: Constitutional Law | 2 Comments

Robert Rosen on the Roles and Dilemmas of Attorneys in Advising Corporations

This is pretty cool: my colleague Robert Rosen has just had his Ph.D dissertation — written many years ago and apparently something of a cult classic — published.

Here’s the publisher’s blurb:

The recognized study of the disparate roles that corporate attorneys play in representing and advising their institutional clients. Long passed around and cited by scholars and lawyers as an unpublished manuscript, the book is also accessible to a wide audience and includes inside interviews. Professor Robert Rosen insightfully explores the choices that lawyers, managers and executives make about how lawyers are involved in corporate processes.

In the companies studied, Rosen showed that corporate lawyers were repeatedly intertwined in decisions—beyond those regarding mere legal compliance—ranging from finance to production to sales to returns to litigation. But the how, when and consequences of their involvements varied. The book analyzes these variations. It examines relations between inside and outside counsel and the management of the corporate legal function. It locates them in a taut framework of organization theory and institutional behavior, a frame and application since referenced for its cogency and explanatory power.

The author, now a senior professor at the University of Miami Law School, repeatedly calls on attorneys to understand the organizational context of their work. His book repeatedly calls out attorneys who ill serve their clients because they failed as organizational analysts. It has since been recognized by legal, ethical, and sociological theorists as a rich resource of corporate analysis and the divergent roles that lawyers play.

The groundbreaking research was conducted at six major manufacturing companies as Rosen interviewed a triad of inside counsel, outside counsel and managers who worked on particular problems. This novel method allowed self-serving statements (especially by the lawyers involved) to be checked and placed in realistic context. More important, because it triangulated how the legal problem was understood, the method brought out how the legal task had been structured. The frames that the lawyers, managers and organization imposed on the legal problems varied widely—and the sources and consequences of these variations are detailed and explained.

The book’s latest edition is now available from Quid Pro Books, but the manuscript has already had scholarly impact and praise. For example, the Yale Law Journal noted in 1996 that “Rosen’s important manuscript is widely cited in recent literature on legal professionalism.”

Posted in Law: Practice, U.Miami | 1 Comment

This Week’s Best Headline?

Suspicious bagel.

A Florida professor was arrested and removed from a plane Monday after his fellow passengers alerted crew members they thought he had a suspicious package in the overhead compartment.

That “suspicious package” turned out to be keys, a bagel with cream cheese and a hat.

Ognjen Milatovic, 35, was flying from Boston to Washington D.C.on US Airways when he was escorted off the plane for disorderly conduct following the incident.

When confronted by the US Airways crew about his “suspicious package,” Milatovic got on his cell phone. The crew asked him to hang it up and sit down. When he refused, he was cuffed.

Milatovic was also charged with interfering with the operation of an aircraft.

Posted in 9/11 & Aftermath | Comments Off on This Week’s Best Headline?