jury duty is in your best interest

One of the minyanaires this morning commented that he might not be there next week because he has a jury summons -- but he's trying to get out of it. (My first thought was that he won't succeed; I got picked for a jury for a (predicted) 2-week trial last January, even though I told them up front that I would be leaving early on Fridays and they should schedule me in June or July instead. Then they settled the case between jury selection and the start of the trial, so it never came up.)

I don't understand why smart people try to get out of jury duty. We need smart people to be on juries as much as possible, to offset the bozo factor and the gullibility factor. Even if it's a PITA, enlightened self-interest should motivate people. I mean, if I were to be accused of a crime (heaven forbid), as it stands I'm not sure I'd want a jury. I suspect a judge is much more likely to evaluate the evidence.

I was on a jury from hell once. It was astonishing. The other jury members really did say, and believe, things like "he looks guilty" (really: "he's black"), and "he must be telling the truth because he's a priest", and crap like that. Utterly disgusting. Not one of them demonstrated any ability to really think. (I was an alternate, so I got kicked out when delibrations began. So I don't know how that played out.)

a Claritech milestone?

I talked to a friend last night who told me that his company is looking for office space. Yesterday they looked at a familiar place: the Claritech building. Apparently the plan would be to build a wall -- David et al would get one side, and the new tenant would get the other. (I guess they'd have to share the garage.) I was wondering how long they were going to have ~10 people occupy a building that had held 60+ before deciding they were spending beyond their means.

What struck me as a bit surprising is that the landlord showed my friend the "executive wing" -- the cushy offices -- instead of the part most of us were in.

I wonder what Claritech is actually doing these days. Research, I suppose, but I wonder in what areas.

sucralose

The flavored water (with artificial sweetener) appeared yesterday. Today, an article on what sucralose is appeared on the cooler. (I'll admit that I hadn't gotten around to doing my own web search yet.)

So first off, the article appears to have been written by sucralose advocates, so take your artificial sugar with a grain of salt. But the claim is that it is derived wholly from sugar and that it passes through the body without being metabolized. Oh, and it's not carcenogenic (they say) and the FDA and WHO say it's safe (they say).

I've never heard of the stuff before, myself. Though I wonder if this is the same stuff as what Fran calls "Sucaril", which she says isn't sold in the US, is gettable in Canada, and is good for baking. (Artificial sweeteners like Nutrisweet apparently do foul things to the taste of cakes and stuff.) This article claims that sucralose is good for baking because it's altered sugar, not chemicals.