cellio | random bits

Entry tags:

random bits

Guess-the-anonymous-poster update: One outstanding guess (paging

aliza250), one where I had to be told (

eclectic_1), all others identified. That was fun.

The stereotype is that smart people (including anyone whose job title implies serious analytical skills) don't get picked for juries, but I'm beginning to wonder. I've been called three times and picked twice, and our engineering director is currently away from work because he's on a jury. Do they just sometimes miss in the screening, or are the lawyers not really screening for this sort of thing after all?

A Texas judge has ordered that a person convicted of animal cruetly must post pictures of the animals she starved in her jail cell. Good for the judge! This is similar to the local story some months back of the hit-and-run driver who is required to carry a photo of the person he killed in his wallet during his probation. Such orders do no harm (it's hardly "cruel and unusual") and serve to put a human (or animal, in the one case) face on the damage done by these people. More, please. (And remember, we're talking about people convicted of criminal charges; I am not advocating haunting those who accidentally cause harm and don't try to hide it with such sentences.)

Do spammers really think that people still open messages with the subject line "URGENT"? Or that most of us think we even might know a sender named Brittany? Ah well; it doesn't fool the filters.

At my most recent physical my doctor called for a routine test that kicks in for women at age 40. (Am I being sufficiently delicate?) No surprises there; the surprise came when I called to schedule and the person said "oh, and no caffeine for two days before". After I moved from incoherent blubbering to actual words, I explained that this posed a difficulty and she relented. It turned out to be advice, not medical necessity. Don't scare me like that!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

No caffeine? Never heard that one. I didn't have to do anything other than "no body powder."

The person I talked with said it "makes them more tender". I'm at a loss as to how that would come to pass, but I'll just take my chances and see what happens.

Huh...probably depends on the person. Never heard that one.

Trust me...there's nothing that's going to make it hurt less. (And I've never heard the no caffiene either.)

I had my first one back in '92, and it wasn't that bad.

I had my second one in '98, and it wasn't that bad.

I had my third one in '02, and it hurt like hell. The follow up in '03 was even worse. Between '98 and '02 they decided that "compression" was a necessary evil. And the smaller you are, the more difficult it is.

Sorry...don't mean to panic you. It's a very uncomfortable test, but one that can save your life. Remember to breathe, and hopefully you'll have a tech that's gentle and will guide you on how to make it less uncomfortable.

Hope it goes okay.

Hey! Women get _told_ about certain tests at age 40. For us guys, it's the sound of the rubber glove snapping onto the doctor's wrist! No contest! :D Not having both sets of anatomy, I'm unable to make a proper comparison as to whether "squish" or "poke" is more painful. :D

My husband and I constantly have the debate as to whether the annual internal (after age 18) for the female is more painful than the annual internal (after age 40) for the male. I could get into some real nasty details here, but I won't. Suffice to say, I think the female exam (if done properly, read: textbook) is the is more painful. But then, I'm biased. ;-)

The only time I've had a gynocological exam be the least bit painful was when a Dr. slipped. (The one thing you never want to hear with your feet in the stirups is "That's intere--Oops.") *shrug* Are they doing them wrong?

Well, not really wrong, but if you have issues, then yes, it can be painful.

And a friend recently had the experience of a med student doing her annual. That did not tickle. ;-)

My experience is similar to

siderea's; I've never had that exam hurt. It's annoying, but it hasn't been painful for me.

"or are the lawyers not really screening for this sort of thing after all?"

When my wife got interviewed, she was asked for "highest level of education completed". When she replied "PhD in Computer Science and Computational Linquistics" they couldn't escort her out the door fast enough. On the other hand, her brother who has a PhD in Biochemistry recently served on a jury. A baron from Rhydderich Hael who's a PhD in physics is currently serving on a jury for a violent felony.

When she replied "PhD in Computer Science and Computational Linquistics" they couldn't escort her out the door fast enough.

I suspect that when the interviewer doesn't know what the degree even means, that's an automatic ding. :-) (Well, that combined with "computer something -- sounds like one of those geeks, not like a nice normal doctor or something".

Ooh! Ooh! Should I go with "College Dropout?"

That sounds a whole lot better than "Some College, but then worked at a University for 8 years," "Works with Large Network Infrastructures," "Computer Systems Analyst," or my favorite: "Turned down MENSA"

Idiots. If I (gosh that HTML was fun) were a lawyer, I'd want the smartest damned people I could find. Prosecuting lawyers should be concerned with presenting fair facts that would lead to a conviction beyond reasonable doubt, and Defense lawyers should be concerned with fair trials and poking legitimate holes in the Prosecutor's theories. Too often it's "Nail 'Em," or "Set them free." It's no wonder that people give lawyers a bad rep.

I'm with you. If, heaven forbid, I should ever be accused of a crime, I want smart jurors or none at all. (That is, I'd take just a judge over a panel of jurors chosen for their perceived maliability.)

No, you're making the assumption that you're innocent and falsely arrested. In THAT case, you want intelligent jurors who are capable of realizing that the facts don't add up. :) If you were actually guilty, you'd want jurors that can be emotionally swayed to let you off.

Yes, but as a citizen, I would want to know that my justice system is actually, well, JUST and would convict lawbreakers. This is one of the areas where I believe that the good of the many totally obliterates and invalidates the feelings of the selfish. I reiterate my point about wanting Defense Lawyers to make sure that the defendant gets a fair trial, because all lawyers (and other people!) should want that.

Now, If I were guilty, I'd want my lawyer to convince the jury that the law was bad. That way it eventually goes to the Supreme Court and gets removed, and I become a citizen's hero, if only fleetingly to those who read SCOTUS proceedings. :)

Having made that ad absurdio argument, I need an appropriate way to express that not being allowed to add chlorine the gene pool violates the the First Amendment. :) :)

Turned down MENSA? Why? If you didn't want it, why did you even take the test?

A long time ago, MENSA used the SAT as an entrance criteria. They've since stopped when, in the late 80s or early 90s, ETS changed the test.

ETS claimed that the changes made the test more fair to some certain subgroups of test-takers. They make the same claims with this most recent round of changes.

If this were so, why would MENSA have dropped it as an eligibility criteria?

Now, honestly, I find it hard to claim how good one's brains are based on one taking of one kind test. I'd much prefer seeing a person's performance on that test, or, preferably, on several different types of test, over many takings at many times. That would eliminate the statistical fluke and establish a broadly-based pattern of intelligence.

But since I last looked at the criteria, I guess that MENSA hasn't been smart (or wise, which could conceivably be called different) enough for that. :)

THAT'S why I didn't join. Their criteria are (were) too broad, and for an elitist group who prides themselves on brains, it was dumb. Besides, enough of the MENSAns I've met seem to be either really socially inept/awkward or just plain unlikeable. I just didn't like the crowd.

Funny Note: LJ's spell check flagged MENSAns and provides these as alternatives (not the full list): Manson's, Menses, Mesons, Monsoons, Minoans, Kansans, Mundanes, Ensigns, Mensch's, Mansards(!), Mansions, Meniscus, Mensches, Minivans

Further note: Failure to use a spell check (when available) may be grounds for DISqualification from MENSA, and may even fall to the level of gene pool chlorination (see previous replies).

One good thing I can say for Mensa: it was a real boost to me when I was an ostracized-for-being-too-smart 15-year-old in a small town. It gave me my first opportunity to hang out with people who would treat me decently. Mind, sometime during college I drifted away, but for those few years I was really glad there was a group I could spend time with, elitist or no. (And how elitist can something that accepts 1 in 50 really be anyway? If that's their goal, they're not doing a good job.)

We'd had mandatory IQ testing in junior high school, so I used that test to enter.

I was put in the "gifted" program after IQ testing, But I don't remember if that was in 2nd, 3rd or 4th grade. I do remember entering something called the "IEP Program" that began around the same time, but I can't recall exactly when, or what it stands for.

Thankfully, I wasn't ostracized (much). The funky demographics of my suburban Philly town generated a number of bright kids. I used to think it was the water because it seemed so normal to me that so many kids were "gifted" or in Honors or AP classes.

I didn't realize how sheltered my life was before I went to college and learned how unusual my town really was. Over 80% of those over 25 had an undergraduate degree, and over 50% had a masters or other post-undergrad degree, and a whopping 30% had an MD, JD, or PhD!

This makes some serious differences in a town of 15,000 or so (when I graduated) with only one school for each grade grouping (K-2, 3-4, 5-8, 9-12 when I started and K-3, 4-8, 9-12 now). Since so many people had advanced degrees, they generally had well-paying jobs. This translates into a higher tax base and, because, they could afford more expensive houses, more property tax revenue. This, in turn, translates directly into better funded schools. Good schools and expensive houses gain the attention of other people with lots of education and bigger paychecks, and tends to cause attrition among those who have trouble paying the taxes, so the cycle continues until some other factor gets large enough to intervene.

Side Note: To find the current school info, I went to the School District's Website and poked around. I found that the K-3 chess team(!) is this year's State Champion! (Go Little Lions! :)) Even though there have been some big changes since I graduated, some things appear to still be the same.

I seem to recall qualifying for MENSA on several grounds, and deciding that any group that thought I was qualified was probably not one I'd want to be part of :-) (But really, the LSAT and the GREs that I took were very similar to one another, to the point that there was one question that was the same on both tests (I took GRE on Sunday and LSAT on the next day))

Another factor: she offered a field of study, rather than just saying "PhD". I don't offer the field unless asked; I just say "BS" or even "bachelor's", and let them either draw their own conclusions or ask. I suspect this is even more important for advanced degrees.

But when I get summoned for jury duty I try to get seated (within the bounds of truth and law, of course); if that's not her goal, then it doesn't sound like she needs to change her current approach.

I'm of mixed views as to whether I want to be on a jury. I got 'called' in Buffalo and given a ghod-awful high juror number and a phone number to call to see if I was wanted that day for the next week. It never got near my number. I got called in Fredonia and was told to report on one day instead of for a week and a number to call the previous day to see if I was still needed. Being in town running errands nearby, I walked into court to check personally. I got shuffled directly to the judge himself who told me I was free to go. The accused plea-bargained. I could tolerate sitting in for one day.

On the other hand, the Baron that's on the violent felony says he is bored to tears. Every piece of evidence has to have a long 'chain of evidence' to show it hasn't been tampered with. The police officer testifies that he found the object while conducting a search of the scene, and then has to give his entire background including where he went to high school to show that he's capable of spotting something. Then the examiner who picked it up with tweezers and put it in an evidence bag has to testify that he did, and what college he went to, to show that he has the necessary expertise to pick something up with tweezers, then the fingerprint expert testifies that he dusted and gives his employment background so the jury knows that he's qualified to dust for fingerprints. He said you can sit there for an entire day just listening to how a couple of items from the crime scene finally wound up in the police lab.

Wow. That sounds tedious.

I sat on a jury (that actually went to trial) only once -- robbery and drug charges -- and the evidence part wasn't nearly that bad. The part I found tedious was that on average we only spent about four hours a day in the court room (because the lawyers and judge needed to do things without us sometimes), which meant that I spent about four hours a day cooped up in a tiny room with the rest of the jury. We weren't allowed to discuss the case (not that this stopped most of them), and we quickly learned that aside from being on this jury we didn't have a lot in common. (The thing that was worst for me is no longer a factor: smokers. I went home sick every day, even though I opened the lone window (in December!). Courts here are non-smoking now.)

In Pittsburgh you get called for one day, not for a week, so at the end of the day either you're on a jury or you're free to go.

The stereotype is that smart people (including anyone whose job title implies serious analytical skills) don't get picked for juries

I suspect that this is nothing more than a small but statistically significant tendency, which gets overblown in the retelling. That is, it wouldn't surprise me if some lawyers, for some cases, prefer to select against the smart candidates. But I suspect that it doesn't happen all that often.

On the no-caffeine front: I'm currently dealing with anecdotal observations that caffeine may be the single thing that's wrecking my stomach. I really don't want to admit this possibility, but it seems to be fitting the facts. This does *not* make me happy. (I'm not a true Coffee Achiever any more, but most of my favorite non-alcoholic drinks involve some caffeine.)

On the no-caffeine front: I'm currently dealing with anecdotal observations that caffeine may be the single thing that's wrecking my stomach.

Really? I've heard people say that *coffee* and *cola* specifically can do that, but I always thought it was something about those specific drinks, rather than the caffeine itself. (For example, tea-drinkers don't seem to have problems as much -- anecdotally only.)

My current delivery system is (diet) cola, which I suppose I should be concerned about. I'd actually prefer something without aspertaine, but I dislike the flavor of coffee and while tea is pleasant, it's caffeine-weak. If I could just take a one-a-day time-release caffeine capsule or something I'd be golden. :-)

There's an old FoxTrot strip that really speaks to me in broad strokes. The father is sitting in his doctor's office and the doctor says "your blood pressure, cholesterol, [others I've forgotten] are all off the scale; what exactly do you eat?" The father says something like "well, in the morning I have a couple of things of coffee...". The doctor says "2 cups of coffee is fine; what else?" The father continues "not cups, pots... then I'll crack open a slab of bacon...". (At this point the doctor tells his nurse to reschedule his next appointment.)

(By the way, if anyone reading this has an electronic copy of that strip, I'd love to have it.)

My impression from my doctor when I first saw her about esophegal pains was that caffeine in general was a problem. And I've been observing that even my choice green teas can cause flareups if I'm drinking them in any sort of serious quantity. (Daily or better.) And decaf coffee does *not* seem to cause problems. So I'm suspecting that caffeine is a major culprit...

Some women find that caffeine makes their breasts tender pre-menstrually, so it makes sense to avoid it before a mammogram.

I haven't gone back to your anonymous poster thread to check, but I suspect you nailed me.

My mother was excused from a jury when the examining lawyer discovered she had taught accounting, and was therefore capable of understanding balance sheets. (It was an insurance arson case.)

That was probably because of domain knowledge relevant to the case rather than general smartness, though. I can easily believe that lawyers want to dump experts from juries, because they work so hard to control the flow of information to the jury.

There was an episode of "Quincy" that really drove that home! Quincy got on a jury and kept questioning the evidence. :D

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

random bits

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

smart jurors

Re: smart jurors

Re: smart jurors

no subject

Re: Tests? We don't need no steenking tests!

Re: Tests? We don't need no steenking tests!

Re: Tests? We don't need no steenking tests!

Re: Tests? We don't need no steenking tests!

Re: Tests? We don't need no steenking tests!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: caffeine

Re: caffeine

no subject

Re: Smart jurors

Re: Smart jurors

Re: Smart jurors