damn the muse

On Saturday it began. That annoying pressure in my nose that a simple allergy pill wasn't pulverizing in its tracks. I turned down an invitation to see Narnia. Me, the movie queen. Something just didn't feel right.

Sunday. I kept crashing into walls. The kicker was when I decided to bake cookies for my friends and Spanish students. For some reason I thought maizena was mazeca. Now I have two funky tasting batches of cookies. I made the mistake of telling my mother so she could coo and make me feel better because I'm sick. Hello, cold from hell. But no. She couldn't stop herself from laughing. How was I supposed to remember it was cornstarch! Add this to the long list of stories to tell the family at Christmas.

Today the fever breaks. I can't get rid of the cookies, and like every failed experiment I want to try again. At least I succesfully converted the grams into cups!

Posted by yasmín at 9:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

He made people laugh. He made me laugh. I remember seeing him in movies with Gene Wilder. He was even in one with Superman. It's rather sad to be living during a time where we're losing such wonderful people. Que duerme en paz.

Posted by yasmín at 10:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The downside to not living at home with my mother: I find out at the last minute that all the qualifying teams for the 2006 World Cup have been assigned to their groups. I realize it's random. Still. It's 1990 all over again, and I honestly don't know how decent the US team is right now.

Ah! But the fever is building.

Did they have to place the Americans with the Italians and the Czechs?!? It's going to be a frickin' blood bath. In the meantime Mexico only has Portugal to deal with, and Argentina doesn't have it bad. Germany is of course in the Cup because they're hosting, but they always have a good team. As long as Brazil doesn't make it to the finals, I'll be happy.

Yes, I am a futból fan. Watch me become rabid. Rawr!

Posted by yasmín at 7:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Downloading songs to sample them is not fair use. Download 30 songs and pay $22,500.

After reading the opinion it's rather obvious that the judge is punishing Gonzalez for the 1300 songs on her harddrive, many of which consisted of songs she already owned. He looks at the 4th requirement for fair use which states, "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Under his analysis, the 30 songs is sufficient evidence coupled with the Grokster decision to show that Gonzalez did not intend fair use. Earlier the Court points out that Gonzalez had purchased music after she had downloaded the songs from Grokster and Aimster.

So, out of 1300 plus songs with some discrepancies only 30 songs were illegal. The rest were all songs Gonzalez owned because she had the cd, or she downloaded the song, sampled it, and decided to buy it. There's definately a market there. Unfortunately for Gonzalez she just spent $750 for each of those songs.

Via How Appealing

update: Fixed the link to the case.

Posted by yasmín at 2:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The IFC will screen This Film is Not Yet Rated uncut on its channel and at Sundance. The film is a documentary that focuses on the ratings board for the MPAA. They're anonymous, and they deem sexual content ten times more harmful than gratuitous violence. This is why a movie like Aeon Flux can get away with a PG-13 but had there been a nipple shot it would have jumped up to R.

Interestingly enough the documentary just received an NC-17 for sexual content.

Posted by yasmín at 8:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm a December baby. Sometimes it sucks. Sometimes it doesn't. My youngest brother shares my pain because he was born five days earlier than my birth date. And yet we are still of the opinion that December babies rule. For instance, did you know that around this time of year hospitals used to deliver newborn babies to their parents in Christmas stockings? Too cute.

Drs V. Surprise! Here's one very afflicted girl child. Good luck on the next 18 years of her life. May I suggest you put her in a home instead.

I insist that the stocking is cute. If I ever have a December baby he/she will be just as lucky as me. The 'rents of course didn't listen, and oh my goodness I'm so much closer to thirty next week! Where is the alcohol!

The amazon wishlist. Buy me something. Dec. 19th is D Day.

Posted by yasmín at 10:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

A judge has ruled that Sambucks sounds too similar to Starbuck's Coffee, and this violates the coffee chain's trademark. Let's forget a second that Sam Buck is the owner's actual name.

The court ruled that Buck abandoned her maiden name by getting married, but Rylander disagrees.

"Women don't abandon their maiden names," he said. "They can still use them when they get married."

He presented two witnesses who testified that Sam Buck is known to community members as just that, but their accounts were ignored in the court's opinion, he said, providing possible grounds for an appeal.

So many women use their maiden names these days. Rather, many refuse to drop their maiden name for their husband's name. Call it that stigma about being a man's property. Now it's more recognized as a professional distinction or a personal choice. The point is not every woman changes her name. Strange how some courts fail to recognize this.

Posted by yasmín at 4:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An anonymous male managed to sneak a razor onto a plane without getting caught by authorities. What did he do with the razor? No throats were slashed, no handsome flight attendants were threatened, and the marshall was clueless. Brownie points awarded everywhere.

The sad thing is if he had been caught he would have been charged as a terrorist or with some crime with the word 'terror' in it.

On the other hand, if we disagree so much with keeping our planes safe, what's next, should a gun be snuck through security just to prove a point. So some things have been taken too far, but where do we cross the line?

Posted by yasmín at 9:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

So it's going to be the Irish against the Buckeyes. The last time they met I saw ND lose in the stadium, and it was so sad. It was also an introduction to another rivalry, one that was just as intense as ND v. USC. I've been waiting for weeks to see if the matchup would fall into place. Now I have to see if I can go! I have one more day to fill out my ticket order form. Things just have to fall into place.

Regardless, the Irish are going to pummel the Buckeyes.

Posted by yasmín at 11:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

BAR/BRI has been sued! Strangely enough many in the industry are not surprised when the course costs close to $3000, and the would be lawyer isn't even guaranteed a live lecture. Are the claims it makes even true?

The Times article focuses more on the company's tendencies to eliminate all the competition.

In 2003, BAR/BRI and L.S.U. agreed that BAR/BRI would provide a bar review course in place of one that L.S.U. offered. BAR/BRI promised to pay L.S.U. $100,000 over a three-year term, as well as $20,000 annually for use of L.S.U.'s facilities. BAR/BRI agreed to charge discounted tuition of between $545 and $645 to L.S.U. law students who had signed up for the school's bar review course. But for new review students, tuition was set to rise to $1,095 in the first year, $1,195 in the second year and $1,295 in the third year.

The agreement also contained this provision: "L.S.U. Law Center agrees that it shall not, without the prior consent of BAR/BRI, undertake for itself or engage any third party to manage or administer any course that could be competitive with BAR/BRI."

John J. Costonis, the chancellor of the L.S.U. law center, said the deal with BAR/BRI made sense. Before he arrived at the school in 1998, he said, "The student bar association at the law school in past years had offered a bar review course and frankly it wasn't very good."

He said he tried to overhaul and improve the program, but his efforts rested heavily on the ability to attract students in New Orleans in addition to those at L.S.U.'s campus in Baton Rouge. When few students enrolled, he said it quickly became clear the program was not viable.

Mr. Costonis, who said that as a practicing lawyer he had gotten to know executives at BAR/BRI, called the company to see if they could work out a deal. Raising the percentage of students who pass the bar was a top priority, he added. "My concern was reasonable price and best quality," Mr. Costonis said, adding that the agreement had a three-year term so that if the bar passage rate did not improve, then L.S.U. could get out of the arrangement.

The move did not go over well with students, said Ms. Gintz, the L.S.U. law graduate. "They kind of just announced it to us all of a sudden: 'L.S.U. is no longer going to have a bar review, all you guys are going to have to take BAR/BRI,' " she said. "There was a huge uprising among the students."

When I was at St. Mu the school advertised two review courses: BAR/BRI and PMBR. If you considered not taking either you were told flat out by the administration that you were going to fail. Frankly, I know people who passed without those course, but it makes you wonder.

Posted by yasmín at 4:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)