Here is a list of why the books are better than the movies:
1. In the books, it makes more sense why Bella and Edward care for each other. He is attracted to her beauty, her selflessness, her blood (of course), and how differently she thinks than most people her age. She likes his face, his smell, and how he tries to be a better person, despite the hand that he was dealt. They also share taste in music. Plus, in the book, they actually have the conversations getting to know each other.
2. We get more detail in the book about the pasts of all the other Cullens, especially that Alice was in a mental institution before she became a vampire, and James killed the vamp who created her.
3. Despite the fact that Stephenie Meyer isn't a super great writer, Bella is infinitely more likeable in the books than Kristen Stewart playing her in the movies is.
4. The books are full of drama, but they are also full of humor, which was lost in the movie - except for the most recent one, which is my favorite one thus far.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Super Sewing Saturday
After seeing Breaking Dawn, part 1 this morning (there was not nearly enough blood IMHO), Lisa and I hosted the first ever Super Sewing Saturday at our place. It was a lot of fun. We had three machines set up, and a variety of projects going on, most of them Christmas related.
I make a couple things which I can't mention, because they are going to be Christmas presents, but they turned out super nice. Shaine made a table runner, complete with gold ribbon. Lisa is still working on her super adorable apron, and Amy flitted around helping everyone with various things. Unbeknowst to me until about a year ago, I seem to have a natural aptitude for sewing, so it's always enjoyable when us girls get together. I can't wait to do it again!
I make a couple things which I can't mention, because they are going to be Christmas presents, but they turned out super nice. Shaine made a table runner, complete with gold ribbon. Lisa is still working on her super adorable apron, and Amy flitted around helping everyone with various things. Unbeknowst to me until about a year ago, I seem to have a natural aptitude for sewing, so it's always enjoyable when us girls get together. I can't wait to do it again!
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Filter!
I am still working on my personal filter. This is especially difficult in certain circumstances, and on Facebook, I just thank my lucky stars that it doesn't post my knee-jerk responses to some of the status updates I see on my news feed. Cause WOW...
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Driving
For some reason, the number of car accidents on the 680 corridor between Crow Canyon and Stone Valley seems to have increased exponentially in the past few weeks. I witnessed a collision 2 weeks ago, and have seen at least 5 more after-the-fact in the intervening days. I have a few ideas about why this is occurring:
1. We're back on standard time. The population is so utterly confused about what time it is that they forget to have their morning Starbucks (because it's LIGHT ALREADY), and then they drift off....into the car next to them, or in front of them. You get the general idea.
2. It's been raining off and on. At night, the glare off freshly rained-on pavement can be overwhelming, so drivers are just shutting their eyes while they drive. No shoes, no vision, no problem.
3. They forget to get the optional turn signal package installed on their vehicle. You know, the one where all you have to do is flick your hand slightly to let other drivers know you want to change lanes or make a turn? Some people apparently didn't get that option on their car, and they simply swerve in and out of the lanes expecting the rest of us to be prescient.
All of this has led me to a great distrust of my fellow commuters, a trust which is going to be really hard to earn back.
1. We're back on standard time. The population is so utterly confused about what time it is that they forget to have their morning Starbucks (because it's LIGHT ALREADY), and then they drift off....into the car next to them, or in front of them. You get the general idea.
2. It's been raining off and on. At night, the glare off freshly rained-on pavement can be overwhelming, so drivers are just shutting their eyes while they drive. No shoes, no vision, no problem.
3. They forget to get the optional turn signal package installed on their vehicle. You know, the one where all you have to do is flick your hand slightly to let other drivers know you want to change lanes or make a turn? Some people apparently didn't get that option on their car, and they simply swerve in and out of the lanes expecting the rest of us to be prescient.
All of this has led me to a great distrust of my fellow commuters, a trust which is going to be really hard to earn back.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Totally useless post
I just have to get this off my chest: NO ONE should be surprised that Kim Kardashian's marriage is ending after 72 days. I don't follow the show that closely, but the few clips I did see while channel surfing usually had her a Kris Humphries arguing about money or something else. The vendors who supplied her with millions of dollars worth of free or discounted items should sue for reimbursement; it's not like she can't afford it. Perhaps the 'Occupy' protestors should start picketing her house, as she is exhibit A for shameful consumerism and waste.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Why I just love driving in the Bay Area
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Thanks, that was really helpful
I am taking a Business Law class through DVC right now, and it is all done online. The class is compressed, and therefore every two weeks I must read 4 chapters in the text, and answer a discussion question. The discussion questions come from the book, and our professor wants us to cite multiple sources in our answer, refer to ourselves in the third person, and basically give some convoluted answer. Here is my first post, which was answering the question "If providers of social networking sites are failing to protect their minor users, why should they be immune from negligence claims?"
Social networking sites should be immune from negligence claims because they do have measures in place to protect minors.
When signing up for an account on Facebook, for example, one commits to them to ‘not provide any false personal information on Facebook.’ (1) Also included in Facebook’s terms of service is a commitment to “not use Facebook if you are under 13 (Facebook).” MySpace also has a similar minimum age requirement for its users, and reserves the right to terminate a user account if it is discovered that the user is under 18 but representing that they are over 18, or vice versa (MySpace). In the case of Doe v. MySpace, the plantiff was 13, however, she chose to provide a false age to the social networking site, thus eliminating one layer of protection the site would have provided to a user under the age of 18. Defense counsel for the site can put forth an affirmative defense of Assumption of Risk (Miller & Jentz, 116); when the minor joined the
site, he or she agreed to the terms of service, and in the case of Doe v. MySpace, Julie was in clear violation of those terms, and would have had knowledge of the risk she was taking.
An additional consideration for exempting these sites from negligence claims pertains to the idea of contributory negligence3. Julie Doe was still under the care of her legal guardian, her mother, whom it appears
was unaware of Julie’s online activity until after the sexual assault occurred. Julie herself was negligent when she agreed to meet with a 19 year-old man alone. In this instance, the minor using the social site initiated face-to-face contact, which was not the responsibility of the creators of MySpace. Most social networking sites attempt to remove offensive or criminal images, language, or videos; these sites, however, cannot remove or prevent crimes that occur outside of the digital domain.
Section 230 of US Code 47 states that the U.S. government has to goal “to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their
children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material. (47 U.S.C)” While it appears that the idea is to assist companies in developing so-called ‘child filters,’ this does not guarantee that minors will (1) circumvent the filters put in place by social networking sites; or (2) that the filter will be effective at blocking all
potentially dangerous images or interactions.
References
1. Facebook. (2011, 26 April). In Facebook Terms, section 4. Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf
2. MySpace (2009, June 25). In MySpace.com Terms of Use Agreement. Retrieved from http://www.myspace.com/Help/Terms
3. Miller,R.L., & Jentz, G.A. Business Law Today (9th ed.). (2011). Mason, OH: South-Western, Cengage Learning.
4. 47 U.S.C. § 230
After this post (I got 17 out of 20), the professor advised all those of us who got 17 or less to reread the syllabus. Ok, I did that; it basically says, don't copy from the text or other students, write in the third person, and use a lot of references. I did that, but clearly it was not enough, so I emailed the professor to ask him about additional sources of precedent, and all I got back was that I should look at the students who did well, and if "that is too hard," I should refer back to the examples.
I love circular reasoning - especially when the students who got 18-20 points weren't really better than me, and had grammatical errors (which he claims to dock points for). Thanks for the help, Dr. Churchill - P.S. your syllabus is full of formatting errors.
Social networking sites should be immune from negligence claims because they do have measures in place to protect minors.
When signing up for an account on Facebook, for example, one commits to them to ‘not provide any false personal information on Facebook.’ (1) Also included in Facebook’s terms of service is a commitment to “not use Facebook if you are under 13 (Facebook).” MySpace also has a similar minimum age requirement for its users, and reserves the right to terminate a user account if it is discovered that the user is under 18 but representing that they are over 18, or vice versa (MySpace). In the case of Doe v. MySpace, the plantiff was 13, however, she chose to provide a false age to the social networking site, thus eliminating one layer of protection the site would have provided to a user under the age of 18. Defense counsel for the site can put forth an affirmative defense of Assumption of Risk (Miller & Jentz, 116); when the minor joined the
site, he or she agreed to the terms of service, and in the case of Doe v. MySpace, Julie was in clear violation of those terms, and would have had knowledge of the risk she was taking.
An additional consideration for exempting these sites from negligence claims pertains to the idea of contributory negligence3. Julie Doe was still under the care of her legal guardian, her mother, whom it appears
was unaware of Julie’s online activity until after the sexual assault occurred. Julie herself was negligent when she agreed to meet with a 19 year-old man alone. In this instance, the minor using the social site initiated face-to-face contact, which was not the responsibility of the creators of MySpace. Most social networking sites attempt to remove offensive or criminal images, language, or videos; these sites, however, cannot remove or prevent crimes that occur outside of the digital domain.
Section 230 of US Code 47 states that the U.S. government has to goal “to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their
children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material. (47 U.S.C)” While it appears that the idea is to assist companies in developing so-called ‘child filters,’ this does not guarantee that minors will (1) circumvent the filters put in place by social networking sites; or (2) that the filter will be effective at blocking all
potentially dangerous images or interactions.
References
1. Facebook. (2011, 26 April). In Facebook Terms, section 4. Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf
2. MySpace (2009, June 25). In MySpace.com Terms of Use Agreement. Retrieved from http://www.myspace.com/Help/Terms
3. Miller,R.L., & Jentz, G.A. Business Law Today (9th ed.). (2011). Mason, OH: South-Western, Cengage Learning.
4. 47 U.S.C. § 230
After this post (I got 17 out of 20), the professor advised all those of us who got 17 or less to reread the syllabus. Ok, I did that; it basically says, don't copy from the text or other students, write in the third person, and use a lot of references. I did that, but clearly it was not enough, so I emailed the professor to ask him about additional sources of precedent, and all I got back was that I should look at the students who did well, and if "that is too hard," I should refer back to the examples.
I love circular reasoning - especially when the students who got 18-20 points weren't really better than me, and had grammatical errors (which he claims to dock points for). Thanks for the help, Dr. Churchill - P.S. your syllabus is full of formatting errors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
