fnordprefect

The article suffers from misuse of the term "the law", which throws the wrong focus on things.

In common law countries, copyright developed in England, which has always had a concept of Crown copyright.[1]

Legislation has always been subject to Crown copyright. So the answer to the article's heading is "yes, as has always been the case".

However, the real problem is different: legislation often gives binding force to things not produced by the legislature. This includes texts of international treaties (in common law countries other than the US, legislation is needed to give them municipal effect), and sometimes even laws of other jurisdictions (eg many Australian legislative regimes are based on the laws of one State being "picked up" and applied as if they had been enacted by another State).[2]

The particular problem is when legal force is given to a document that is produced by private parties. That document isn't a "law" in the usual sense, but legal obligations (and rights) can be imposed/created by actual laws by reference to its contents. eg: you must build to a standard, which is defined as a document produced by standards body X, and suffer a penalty or have your building liable to be demolished if you don't.

The problem addressed in the article is when those non-laws are given legal effect by actual laws. It should be the case that a citizen can find the entire contents of laws that bind them. There are areas of discourse in jurisprudence about it being fundamentally unfair if there are "secret" laws that a person may contravene but cannot know about to avoid contravening. The present topic comes close - the person has to pay to know the full extent of the law that binds them.

This is a policy issue, not a copyright one. Private documents like this will be subject to copyright because they are literary works.[3] The question is how to avoid the moral unfairness in one having to pay to know what one is required to do. Many solutions exist, eg compulsory licensing, a payment by the government in exchange for a creative commons style licence, etc.

The counter argument is that it takes expertise, time and money to create and maintain these standards, and if standards don't cover things to do with everyday life (eg obligations for driving, laws about what you can and can't do on the street) but are restricted to things like building or industrial activities (eg earthing requirements for high voltage installations), then these aren't standards that can be contravened by chance, but only apply if you undertake project X. So if someone wants to do project X and needs to comply with a paid standard to do project X, then doing so is a cost of doing project X.

TFA discusses this issue: building codes are relevant if you want to undertake building work. Should there be an extra cost of doing so, noting that you will already incur application/permit costs, inspection costs, etc in addition to the materials and labour?

We have exactly this issue in Australia: things often have to be done according to Australian Standards (which now often also double as New Zealand standards), but these are supplied by a private company that produces and charges for them. eg if you want to buy the standard AS 1926.1-2012 - Swimming pool safety-Safety barriers for swimming pools, a hard copy is A$152.66 and a soft copy is A$137.39.

So the question is - if someone wants to put in a swimming pool, is it wrong that they have to pay and extra amount to get a copy of the standards that they must build to?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright 2. This is a dark art, and has all sorts of conceptual and practical problems, but it is done. 3. I leave aside the massive expansion in what is protected under copyright, another policy question but one that content creators have decisively won.

> the ovoid engine inlets

The original design of the 737 did not have ovoid inlets.

You can see regular circular nacelle inlets on the 737-100:

https://secure.boeingimages.com/archive/Boeing-737-100-2JRSX...

and on the 737-200 here:

https://secure.boeingimages.com/Assets/V2/jrZYYwCXohU1rDmk4e...

The ovoid inlet design was introduced with the 737-300, when the engine was changed to the CFM56.

It's not even Western, from my experience it's just the US. In Australia, I don't think I'd ever seen a yellow pencil, other than one that came in a set of coloured pencils for art. I hadn't realised it was the norm in the US until relatively recently.

We have these, just for example:

https://www.faber-castell.com/products/GraphitepencilGoldfab...

https://www.staedtler.com.au/en/products/pencils-accessories...

There was a lot of good work done by Apple in the days of classic Mac OS - see eg pages 103, 196-7, 201 and 206-7 from the Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines, available eg at http://interface.free.fr/Archives/Apple_HIGuidelines.pdf

Some of the reasons behind the suggestions (which are clearer when you view the associated pictures in the pdf):

"The Western reader’s eye tends to move from the upper-left corner of the dialog box to the lower right. Put the initial impression that you want to convey in the upper-left area (like the alert icon), and place the buttons that a user clicks in the lower right. Following this guideline makes it easier for users to identify what’s important in a dialog box."

"The button names in the save changes alert box correlate to the action users perform by pressing the button. The buttons read Save, Don’t Save, and Cancel. Using these verbs reinforces the identity of each possible action to the user. In other words, the Don’t Save label provides much more context for the user than the word No does."

"In order to prevent accidental clicks of the wrong button, you should always keep safe buttons apart from buttons that could cause data loss. Standardizing the location of buttons in a safe configuration provides an additional safeguard for the user. Place the Save button in the lower-right corner with the Cancel button to its left. Place the Don’t Save button left-aligned with the message text. Make the Save button the default button, which means that it should be linked to the Return or Enter key. This way, the user is less likely to accidentally click the Don’t Save button or activate it with a keystroke and cause irretrievable loss of data."

"Whenever possible, name a button with a verb that describes the action that it performs. Button names should be limited to one word whenever possible. You should never use more than three words for a button name."

One good justification for the Cancel->OK order is that it means the default button (usually the OK button, but also Save, Print etc) is always in the same position in the dialog -- far bottom right -- regardless of how many other buttons there are, and how wide they are. This gives consistency / familiarity / muscle memory.

It also lets you place "data loss" buttons well away, in the far bottom left, as "an additional safeguard for the user". On classic Mac OS, you always knew pressing a button towards the lower left corner, and set away from the other buttons, could spell trouble.

The problem with the Windows way of doing things is that the default button moves depending on the width and number of other buttons, and there is no "safe button place" and "unsafe button place".

I'm a lawyer (day job) and programmer (now hobby, former side job). I find interruptions just as bad for both kinds of work when you are in or trying to get into the zone.

By that, for coding, one good example is trying to work out how something new would be implemented, then how it would fit with existing things, then getting down to implementing. For that, you need a clear mental model of all the moving parts -- what's there, what's not there, what has to be added, and what has to change. When you're in the zone, you know where you are, where you're going, what to add and how to add it. Things just flow. Code appears, and you keep track in your head of files you need to visit and what you need to do in each. If left uninterrupted, you will eventually get there, and hours can disappear without you noticing. Same with debugging, when you're trying to map in your head what is going on, what should be going on, and what might be causing a deviation between the two.

You have to rebuild that model when you get interrupted, and the extent of the rebuilding is usually proportional (and monotonically increasing) to the length of the interruption and the extent you have to commit thought to it.

For legal work, I find that kind of work usually occurs in writing submissions or preparing cross-examination. You're thinking about your overall journey to win the case (usually all or part of your case theory) and how you help get there with what you're working on. You're keeping points made in dozens of cases that you have to interleave when you get to the right place, or that you have to take account of in the evidence (eg what kind of evidence does case X require me to adduce to prove point Y). You're thinking about what is persuasive (the key to all good legal writing) but also about what is accurate (duty to the court), what is admissible into evidence, and what is understandable to your audience (usually a judge). Again, when you're in the zone, it just flows and time has little meaning.

The overall interrelationship is the same as coding -- lots of moving parts in your head, lots of reliance on short-term memory -- and it suffers the same way from interruptions.

My pet theory is that the more that mental work requires saturating short term memory, and making use of it when saturated, the more vulnerable it is to interruptions.

Isn't there also a potential problem with hydrogen embrittlement (depending on what materials are exposed) that you avoid with helium?

A few points:

1. At least in Australia, where I work, most judges are appointed in their 50s and 60s, meaning those currently on the bench likely went to law school in the 70s at the latest. Computer classes were relatively rare, and most lawyers back then did their degrees in Arts and Law. Science/Law degrees did not become popular (relatively speaking; they're still a distinct minority of lawyers) until the late 90s. That cohort has not yet been appointed to the bench.

2. Judges do have associates or tipstaffs (in the U.S. they're called "clerks"), and there are a decent number who have STEM degrees. They can, to some extent, assist the judges in understanding the issues so as to work out what questions they need to ask to educate themselves and to bring out the issues in the case.

3. Managing STEM issues in cases (and this is not just confined to software but includes science generally, as many cases involve chemistry, biology and physics) is generally done by lawyers who have relevant degrees. Generally speaking, we know enough to stop it going off the rails, and we try to pick experts who know and can explain the concepts to non-technical judges. We try to educate them, and de-jargonify the issues where appropriate. This is not that different from picking lawyers with shipping expertise in shipping cases, insurance expertise in insurance cases, etc.

4. Thankfully, we don't have juries for civil trials other than sometimes in defamation cases. Frankly, the use of juries in civil litigation in American courts is an anachronism that is pretty astonishing to non-US lawyers. (It's up there with electing some judges.) I think this is the real problem at the level of fact-finding. Testimony has to be aimed not at intelligent, well-educated judges who have an open mind and are trying to learn issues about coding (or the function of mRNA, or stereochemistry, or hydrostatic forces, or any other specialist area like forensic accounting, or how banks do their daily reconciliations with each other etc), but at the people who were unable to dodge jury duty. The idea that a case of any significance is left to a jury is unfathomable to me.

+1 to this. "Impactful" is not just clunky, it's corporate wankspeak. "Impacted" is bad enough -- only teeth, fractures and faeces can be impacted -- but that appears already to be a lost battle, unfortunately.

We've been doing it in Australia since 2011 [http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/current-cases-submissions and http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/cases-heard], and none of the downsides you've predicted have occurred. It's extremely useful for practitioners, and the main academic use I've seen is to get a better idea of what arguments were being put (usually done in combination with the transcripts of argument, which have been up since 1994: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCATrans/ )

Actually, a lot of the force of your criticism disappears when you realise that they are both derivatives of governmental logos used in the UK -- not surprising since both bodies are British.

The Ministry of Sound logo is a derivative of the crowned portcullis logo of the Parliament of the UK - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingd...

Nice work. ps - millennium has two Ns in it

Actually, the interesting thing is that the US is somewhat of an outlier. (I am a practising non-US lawyer, with an emphasis on tech, and I program extensively as a hobby.)

In the Australia, UK, and other common law jurisdictions, you generally do not need to have a law degree, but you do have to do a short course that gives you the academic basics behind law - this can be and usually is done part-time, as an evening course and usually results in the award of a diploma. (see e.g. http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/law-careers/becoming-a-solicito... or http://www.lpab.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/lpab/legalprofessio...) While a good law degree helps get jobs, some of the best lawyers I have met used this path to get admitted to practice.

Being able to think like a lawyer is important, but the life of the law is common sense, experience and good judgment. That cannot be taught. Newly-qualified lawyers invariably tend to be up to speed on the theoretical aspects of law but cannot run a lawsuit, manage a deal or draft a contract to save themselves. What law school teaches (the basics of the subjects and thinking like a lawyer) is only about 1/10 to 1/20 of the role.

The real meat of the role is thinking strategically and pragmatically: yes, I can oppose this request, but what is it going to prompt the other side to do, and how will judge X take it when the matter is brought in front of him. In other words, what will the client possibly gain or lose from taking that course? Is it worth it? And what other courses are open? And what are they likely to lead to? What do I need to get to win the case, and what is optional, unnecessary or a distraction? How does this fit with what the client wants and (often) what the client needs that they don't even realise they need or (commonly) that they actively don't want to do? Good lawyers are thinking multiple steps down the road, not just the immediate problems, and have a good idea where they want to end up.

You can only get this by experience, and ideally by watching and learning from people who are experienced at it while they do it. You could try to do it by self-study, but you would likely be sued into oblivion by your clients for all the mistakes you would make (which would usually be caught and avoided by the more experienced person you should be learning under, and if not absorbed by their insurance). Based on my experience, which includes international experience, I estimate that you need 10 years of doing it full-time to be at a point where you would be able to describe yourself as competent, and able to do it alone, provided you have been working and learning during that time.

You need to learn human nature, how people think and are motivated, how they react to incentives and disincentives, and how they react to normative or moral issues. You need to appreciate that you never find black or white but only shades of grey. You need to learn ruthless pragmatism. You need to learn persuasion. You need to learn to recognise the gulf between what a contract or statute might say in black and white, versus what a judge will do when confronted with the practical justice of the contest. That difference is magnified if a jury is involved (don't get me started on the stupidities of the US jury system or the use of juries for anything other than criminal cases).

Law is much more a social science than it is anything else, but there is a big place for logic and logical thinking. Since you also need interpersonal skills, it is a hard discipline because you need to bring both "left" and "right" brain skills to bear.

It's rather ironic that the article misspells 'privileged'