Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 297 posts

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#31

Post by Zetaphor »

demarq wrote: post #26
_bin_ wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyers are held to different standards of professional conduct than defendants. This also makes it much harder to read.

I see what you are saying about there being different standards. I would follow up with, if the shoe was on the other foot, do you believe that a lawyer with tattoos and or purple hair should be allowed to practice? We may never agree? But I think that we should be more tolerant of individuality than prejudice.

You're comparing a person's appearance to the formatting of a legal document. Nobody is talking about the physical appearance of the attorney.

There is procedure and standards in document filing for a reason, this is more difficult to read than a white background.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#32

Post by cperciva »

wiradikusuma wrote: post #4

Also, sometimes we (developers) like to use wacky data for testing purposes. For example, I like to put Batman as a dummy user, and my QA likes to upload cat pictures when testing uploads/images. We do it so it's obvious it's test data, and also we're lazy to think of more "real" data. Just say some users expect real(ish) data for testing. I had a client who was totally not happy when he saw Batman and Superman in th…

For example, I like to put Batman as a dummy user

I can't remember the details, but I've heard a story multiple times about a fake-sounding name being used in testing -- I think US military payroll? -- and causing problems when a real person had that name. Can anyone here remember this?

In any case, "batman" is just about plausible enough that it could be real. I tend to use names like "Mr. Testy Testalicious" which (a) contain the string "test", and (b) are so wildly absurd that I'm confident nobody will ever collide with it.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#35

Post by jbverschoor »

cperciva wrote: post #32
wiradikusuma wrote: post #4

Also, sometimes we (developers) like to use wacky data for testing purposes. For example, I like to put Batman as a dummy user, and my QA likes to upload cat pictures when testing uploads/images. We do it so it's obvious it's test data, and also we're lazy to think of more "real" data. Just say some users expect real(ish) data for testing. I had a client who was totally not happy when he saw Batman and Superman in th…

For example, I like to put Batman as a dummy user I can't remember the details, but I've heard a story multiple times about a fake-sounding name being used in testing -- I think US military payroll? -- and causing problems when a real person had that name. Can anyone here remember this? In any case, "batman" is just about plausible enough that it could be real. I tend to use names like "Mr. Testy Testalicious" which…

lol I read something else right there

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#36

Post by mukesh610 »

rootsudo wrote: post #19
nicman23 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep that is what they are calling themselves

TIL and I didn't want to, sigh, Internet.

Unintentionally discovering a thing you know you're going to hate has got to be top 10 internet experiences.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#37

Post by perihelions »

- "The whole story would be far more humorous were it not from a case in which Perrone represented a woman who claims that she nearly died after being incarcerated and not given proper medical care. Perrone must now refile his complaint in that case—without the cartoon dragon."

That should be more offensive than cartoons. In a just world.

It's not as if the victim had the luxury of many choices of law firms, or any capacity to oversee their work. Their access to legal services is presumably similar to their access to medical care. There's nothing amusing about this outcome. It's seriously depressing that "the coked-up cartoon-dragoon attorney" is the best representation that person, in their helpless situation, was able to navigate to.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#38

Post by _bin_ »

demarq wrote: post #26
_bin_ wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyers are held to different standards of professional conduct than defendants. This also makes it much harder to read.

I see what you are saying about there being different standards. I would follow up with, if the shoe was on the other foot, do you believe that a lawyer with tattoos and or purple hair should be allowed to practice? We may never agree? But I think that we should be more tolerant of individuality than prejudice.

I disagree with the way the bar associations are currently constructed as state-sanctioned monopolies. Since they're technically the ones who determine who is "allowed to practice", that's a hard question to answer.

I'd be comfortable establishing a stronger dress code for courtrooms - wear business casual or some such - but dyed hair and tattoos aren't easily fixable mistakes if you get called to court, so they have to be permitted for at least the defendant. For attorneys, it's probably fine to say that those with purple hair and tattoos can practice but not appear in a courtroom to represent a client. They can prep and file a patent but not represent you in a trial. That is, of course, if most people would hire an attorney with purple hair and tattoos. I would not do that unless I wanted to somehow get the death penalty for a speeding ticket.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#39

Post by bmacho »

demarq wrote: post #12

The whole point of a judicial process is to make judgments on the merit of a case not personal prejudice. What if someone comes to court wearing tattoos are they more guilty?

> The whole point of a judicial process is to make judgments on the merit of a case not personal prejudice.

And specifying the style of something that they are able to change easily helps that.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#40

Post by eesmith »

cperciva wrote: post #32
wiradikusuma wrote: post #4

Also, sometimes we (developers) like to use wacky data for testing purposes. For example, I like to put Batman as a dummy user, and my QA likes to upload cat pictures when testing uploads/images. We do it so it's obvious it's test data, and also we're lazy to think of more "real" data. Just say some users expect real(ish) data for testing. I had a client who was totally not happy when he saw Batman and Superman in th…

For example, I like to put Batman as a dummy user I can't remember the details, but I've heard a story multiple times about a fake-sounding name being used in testing -- I think US military payroll? -- and causing problems when a real person had that name. Can anyone here remember this? In any case, "batman" is just about plausible enough that it could be real. I tend to use names like "Mr. Testy Testalicious" which…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(surname) - 'Batman is a surname of English origin. It originates from Saint Bartholomew and means "a friend or servant of Bart."'

It lists a few people, like "Daniel Batman (20 March 1981 – 26 June 2012) was an Australian sprinter." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Batman

A few DDG searches finds others with the surname Batman who are not famous enough to be on Wikipedia.

Post reply on HN