Turtles all the way down

At first blush I liked the idea of traffic cameras. But a bunch of studies indicate that red light cameras make intersections more dangerous and provide improper incentives to cities. Apparently, the law of unintended consequences is at play.

Just last month there was the latest in a rather long line of reports noting that red light cameras tend to increase the number of accidents because people slam on their brakes to stop in time, leading to rear-ending accidents. Time and time again studies have shown that if cities really wanted to make traffic crossings safer there’s a very simple way to do so: increase the length of the yellow light and make sure there’s a pause before the cross traffic light turns green (this is done in some places, but not in many others). Tragically, it looks like some cities are doing the opposite! Jeff Nolan points out that six US cities have been caught decreasing the length of the yellow light below the legal limits in an effort to catch more drivers running red lights and increasing revenue. This is especially disgusting. These cities are actively putting more people in danger of serious injury or death solely for the sake of raising revenue — while claiming all along that it’s for safety purposes. Is it any surprise that one of the six cities is Dallas? Remember, just last month Dallas decided it wasn’t going to install any more red light cameras because fewer tickets had hurt city revenue.

Perhaps the problem could be mitigated if, after costs, the profits from red light cameras went to a charitable cause instead of the city. Then the city would be less motivated to use them for purposes of revenue. Or the city would get state funding if they effectively reduced their accident rate and accident severity as well as the percentage of red lights that get run.

Of course, I’d like to see these studies fact checked and replicated in other cities as well.

Of course they did. Allowing taxpayers to tax those who can afford it at a higher rate just makes too much sense. For the record, I would support such a tax even if the additional 3% was phased in gradually after $250,000, not all at once.

The Illinois House has rejected a proposal to let voters decide whether to increase income taxes on the state’s wealthiest residents.

Under the proposal, a constitutional amendment would have been placed on the ballot this fall. The amendment would have doubled the income tax to 6 percent for people making $250,000 a year or more.

I was thinking this morning…can anyone just go and pass the patent bar, become a patent agent, and then effectively represent clients?

No.

Like I said earlier, the patent bar exam does not test the nuts and bolts of claim drafting or responses to office actions. You need to learn this through experience, preferably several years thereof.

So if you have a strong technical background and want to start your own cottage patent prosecution practice, don’t expect to do it by just taking the patent bar exam. Take the exam but then expect to spend 2-4 years learning from someone with a lot of experience in these matters.

Then you might be able to set out on your own. Maybe.

I’m not a big fan of classroom learning. It is effective to an extent. It is not effective when class time is used inefficiently.

Currently I get about 10-11 hours of classroom instruction per week, and I think it is too much. While face time with experts (i.e., professors) is a critical aspect of learning, other effective avenues are group and solo studying.

The particular quirks of law school lecture classes - no homework and one big final being the only grade - is probably less conducive to effective learning than others formats.

Right now, I’m thinking that 5-6 hours of classroom instruction would be best, while there should be more emphasis on doing and less on reading.

A recent sexual-orientation / free speech controversy in my hometown brings to light problems with court reporting.

Appellate Judge Richard Posner argued that the T-shirt’s message was just a play on words to reinforce the students’ message.

“It’s so tepid,” Posner said. “It’s just a pun because gay once meant happy. It’s a joke.”

Thanks to the Internet, anyone can listen to most appellate court arguments. This one is here.

While the listener can (and should) decide for themselves, it is clear that Judge Posner challenged both attorneys, and the excerpt above was not at all indicative of the tone of the conversation.

The latest issue in the ongoing copyright debate:

University of Florida professor Michael Moulton thinks copyright law protects the lectures he gives to his students, and he’s headed to court to prove it.

Moulton and his e-textbook publisher are suing Thomas Bean, who runs a company that repackages and sells student notes, arguing that the business is illegal since notes taken during college lectures violate the professor’s copyright.

In this case, the professor is mistaken for a few reasons. First of all, the whole point of teaching is to convey information, among other things. How that information is conveyed should not be the professor’s concern and as long as no clearly illegal copying (e.g., photocopying and scanning of his textbook) occurs. If students find it useful to purchase notes supplementing or even replacing their own, that is their business and right. As the article states, students have been doing so for years, and in some cases these “supplemental” material are better instructive tools than the textbooks themselves.

In fact, the professor should just put his notes on the web, like so many are starting to do (myself included), and let anyone do as they wish with the notes.

Additionally, if the students can learn the material well enough to pass the exams without attending class, they why shouldn’t they be allowed to do so? Getting copies of notes from classmates is an age old tradition and usually is a sign of a dedicated student. In this case, the notes are just more easily available, albeit at a price.

On the other hand, I suspect that this lawsuit has little to do with education or learning. It is about money. The professor wants to make money on his textbook, while the note-selling company wants to make money on notes. These factors have little to do with giving the students the best possible education, though neither are necessarily contrary to that goal.

If the professor just put his notes on line, the note-copying company would not have a business, and the students would be better off. If the professor is so concerned about money he could use unintrusive online ads to let the market decide the value of his material.

I’m happy to announce that my brain is very protected:

Coffee may cut the risk of dementia by blocking the damage cholesterol can inflict on the body, research suggests.