annoying things
My macbook power cord has died, which is apparently a common occurrence. It still sorta works if I finagle with it a bit. I guess tomorrow I will go to the nearby Apple store and try to hassle them into replacing it for free because it is a defective product. I will then probably drop $80 for a new one after they refuse to give it to me for free.
Speaking of annoying Mac things, ever since I installed Leopard last week, Apple Mail has said my inbox has over 4 billion emails. Right now the count is 4,294,966,763 messages. Somehow, I doubt. There are really only about 40 emails in my inbox. I think this is probably linked to the death of my logic board, since Mail has been weird ever since then, just not this crazy post-Leopard weirdness. Before it was just randomly resending and rereceiving old emails, which it still does sometimes.
I am supposed to send in my edited draft of my article tonight, but I've been out of commission most of the day with a raging headache of death. Maybe I can polish it off now. I need to get this article crap out of the way for the next two weeks while I prepare for final exams. I have two ridiculously difficult exams coming up. here's a sample of the sort of question I might have to answer:
"Briefly describe the way(s) in which the decision in Michigan v. Long rests on principles that are in tension with the principles on which the decision in Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Company was based."
Hahaha, briefly describe...Although I guess most briefly, Michigan v. Long encourages federal courts to assume that state court decisions that are ambiguously based on either state or federal law are in fact based on federal law, while Pullman generally tells federal courts to defer to state courts when it is possible to resolve a case on state law grounds and avoid interpreting federal (usually constitutional) law. I wonder if that is too brief.
The hard part of that sort of question, for those of you less familiar with the niceties of US federal court procedures, is that it asks you to compare the underlying theories behind two important cases from very different parts of the syllabus. Also, Michigan v. Long is in tension with just about everything, but I don't think the answer "because Mich. v. Long is poorly reasoned and in tension with everything" would get many points (unless Justice Stevens were grading the exam! he'd probably give that an A+.)
Anyway, look, it's almost December!
Speaking of annoying Mac things, ever since I installed Leopard last week, Apple Mail has said my inbox has over 4 billion emails. Right now the count is 4,294,966,763 messages. Somehow, I doubt. There are really only about 40 emails in my inbox. I think this is probably linked to the death of my logic board, since Mail has been weird ever since then, just not this crazy post-Leopard weirdness. Before it was just randomly resending and rereceiving old emails, which it still does sometimes.
I am supposed to send in my edited draft of my article tonight, but I've been out of commission most of the day with a raging headache of death. Maybe I can polish it off now. I need to get this article crap out of the way for the next two weeks while I prepare for final exams. I have two ridiculously difficult exams coming up. here's a sample of the sort of question I might have to answer:
"Briefly describe the way(s) in which the decision in Michigan v. Long rests on principles that are in tension with the principles on which the decision in Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Company was based."
Hahaha, briefly describe...Although I guess most briefly, Michigan v. Long encourages federal courts to assume that state court decisions that are ambiguously based on either state or federal law are in fact based on federal law, while Pullman generally tells federal courts to defer to state courts when it is possible to resolve a case on state law grounds and avoid interpreting federal (usually constitutional) law. I wonder if that is too brief.
The hard part of that sort of question, for those of you less familiar with the niceties of US federal court procedures, is that it asks you to compare the underlying theories behind two important cases from very different parts of the syllabus. Also, Michigan v. Long is in tension with just about everything, but I don't think the answer "because Mich. v. Long is poorly reasoned and in tension with everything" would get many points (unless Justice Stevens were grading the exam! he'd probably give that an A+.)
Anyway, look, it's almost December!