Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

I Am Now a Locavore

I am now a locavore.

This morning we picked up our first box of local produce from Redland Organics & Bee Heaven Farm, Miami's Community-Supported Agriculture, which proudly calls itself “the southernmost CSA in the USA.” They deliver to a member's house, not all that far from where I live.

There was a healthy mix of things in the box — not too much of anything. Mostly leafy things, but also radishes, herbs, and (if the packing list is to be believed) avocados. I didn't have time to look carefully because I have an all-day committee meeting…

Posted in Miami | 1 Comment

How to Use Google to Crack Passwords

Google as a password cracker. Amazing.

Posted in Cryptography | 3 Comments

Reasons to Avoid Law School

Paul Gowder has written an essay on Why you shouldn't go to law school.. There's a lot of truth there, but it also leaves out a few crucial things.

The truest parts are surely these: a lot of legal jobs are no fun. Some of the most no-fun jobs pay very well, but many of the no-fun jobs don't pay that well if you consider the need to repay law school (and perhaps also undergraduate) debt.

A law degree is absolutely not a guaranteed meal ticket. Nor is it a guarantee that you'll be doing something interesting. For one thing, before you even get to the negatives that Gowder lists, there's an even more basic issue that makes some people unhappy: you are a lawyer. Some people — notably a significant fraction of the people who drifted into law school straight from college because they couldn't think of anything else to do — find that they don't like being a lawyer. Gowder captures that problem. And it is a very real problem.

One thing he doesn't capture is that there are also people who actually discover they love the law. It's about important things. You get to solve people's problems. Perhaps you get to solve puzzles, or you get to deal with people.

Gowder's essay is aimed at all the people who are not landing at the elite of the profession. People who do really well get to choose some of the firms that are still run by nice people with decent values.

Gowder is writing to the rest of the world, and he paints a grim picture. What he says has a lot of truth (although I think he's overly grim about what the experience of public interest law is like), but also dramatically incomplete.

The biggest thing Gowder's essay leaves out is the attractions of government work. There are a lot of good government jobs at the local, state and national levels. The federal jobs even offer decent wages. The local jobs don't always. But government jobs do offer some other important things: because the offices are chronically understaffed and under-resourced, young lawyers get responsibility early in their careers. These jobs often offer the satisfaction of using one's talents for the public good.

Government work has many faces: prosecutors, public defenders [link added 1/17], agency lawyers, state AG's offices, advisers to legislatures and to the executive. Lots of these are frustrating yet fulfilling places to work.

The prospects for lawyers are not as bright as they were in the Good Old Days (whenever those were). The profession is stratified, pay and job quality varies enormously, satisfaction levels are shrinking while (not coincidentally) hours (especially in the highly paid sectors of the private sector) are at unreasonably high levels. And the billing rates are climbing to levels that are sure to incite client revolts.

So there are indeed many reasons not to go to law school. You should only go if you know why you are doing it (although you should also expect that you are likely to change your mind about what kind of law you like best once you are exposed to new things), not because you can't think of anything better to do. And I also suggest a couple of years working full time before law school — there's nothing like seeing the working world from the inside to both make you a more disciplined student, and also to give you insight into many of the situations that give rise to the legal issues you will spend three years analyzing. (Second-best: graduate school in an affiliated discipline, as it gives a different and also valuable perspective.)

That said, I have to admit I enjoyed many aspects of the practice of law. At the end of the day I didn't care deeply enough about which oil company got the money, but I cared about my clients (and they cared a lot which oil company got the money!), and I had pride in the quality of our work. Unlike Gowder's dismal prediciton, I was never in a position where either I or anyone around me even contemplated anything unethical. I did have the advantage of parlaying elite credentials into working for a very good and very decent firm, but not all firm jobs (at least 15 years ago) amounted to complete corporate serfdom.

I enjoyed law school more, which is a large part of why I came back to it. There really is a distinct kind of rigor and reasoning style which characterizes the law. Law is how we decide (or, sometimes, should decide) important social issues. It is the means by which we implement the large majority of public policies. It matters. Unless you are caught up in the sort of associate treadmill that eats all your waking life, a law license is also a license to take part in a meaningful way in politics, law reform, legal aid, and many other things that can be very satifying even if your day job isn't as exciting as it might be.

Posted in Law School | 14 Comments

More on the Theory of Everything

Dr. Garrett Lisi has a wiki where he posts about his theories.

There's also an extended discussion with critics/questioners on this thread from a physics blog. It's over my head, though.

Previous post: Can the Underlying Structure of the Universe Be Represented as an E8?

Update: Giant quicktime movie of an E8 being rotated.

Posted in Science/Medicine | Comments Off on More on the Theory of Everything

GOP in Danger Even Here

According to a diary at Daily Kos, there's a move afoot to draft Joe Garcia, one the best local Democrats, to run against Mario Diaz-Balart in the 25th district. What's more, there's talk of drafting someone to run against Ileana Ros-Lehtinen here in the 18th!

It would be the year to try it. And she's seriously out of touch with this district, gerrymandered as it is.

Previous posts:

Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of the Eighteenth District of Florida Votes Against Health Care for Poor Children

Who Will Run Against Ros-Lehtinen? (All Politics Is Local)

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Admits She Lied, But Doesn't Apologize

Posted in Politics: FL-18 | 1 Comment

Can the Underlying Structure of the Universe Be Represented as an E8?

Lisi-figure2.gifIt's either all wrong, or it is one of the most important theoretical physics discoveries in history, a major step in the direction of a unified field theory.

In An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything, one Garrett Lisi, physics Ph.D and, yes, nearly-homeless surfer dude, suggests that E8 (described by the UK Daily Telegraph as an “eight-dimensional mathematical pattern with 248 points first found in 1887, but only fully understood by mathematicians this year after workings, that, if written out in tiny print, would cover an area the size of Manhattan”) has this amazing property: E8, says, Dr. Lisi, contains the Standard Model, plus the symmetries belonging to gravity.

And, oh yes, the model makes the testable hypothesis that there are 20 more standard particles waiting to be found by supercolliders. (Twenty seems like rather a lot?)

Here's the abstract of the paper,

Abstract: All fields of the standard model and gravity are unified as an E8 principal bundle connection. A non-compact real form of the E8 Lie algebra has G2 and F4 subalgebras which break down to strong su(3), electroweak su(2) x u(1), gravitational so(3,1), the frame-Higgs, and three generations of fermions related by triality. The interactions and dynamics of these 1-form and Grassmann valued parts of an E8 superconnection are described by the curvature and action over a four dimensional base manifold.

This representation, to the very limited extent I follow it, doesn't tell us anything directly about the shape of the universe; rather it threatens to tell us something fundamental about the relationships between the particles and forces that make up and that shape the universe. While the “exceptionally simple” part of the paper title is — or had better be — a joke, the 248 dimensions of E8 are needed only for representation of relationships; the universe it describes has only the three dimensions we know, plus time, distinguishing this theory from string theory, which requires many more (even if some are very tiny).

Dr. Lisi's theory also makes pretty pictures.

Pictured above: figure 2 of Dr. Lisi's paper, “The E8 root system, with each root assigned to an elementary particle field.” There's also a cute movie of an E8 being rotated.

As noted above, there are already critics. Super-string advocate (and politically weird) Luboš Motl will have none of it.

Continue reading

Posted in Science/Medicine | Comments Off on Can the Underlying Structure of the Universe Be Represented as an E8?