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

101–110 of 297 posts

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

#101

Post by bityard »

zahrc wrote: post #15

Any image in this position would be distracting. However, I have never understood notions like this: “it is juvenile and impertinent. The Court is not a cartoon” Is like my great grandpa scolding us at the dinner table for laughing and talking.

Courts deal with serious life-changing issues and everyone involved in a court case is expected behave seriously. In fact, that is literally the primary role of the judge. And why judges are famously strict on procedure, demeanor, and the overall decorum of the courtroom. This is the only thing that prevents your average court case from turning into an episode of Jerry Springer.

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

#102

Post by striking »

impossiblefork wrote: post #98

I think it's a mistake to have rules about filings. Maybe it's distracting, but if the filing has been done, there should be no reason for the court not to read it and make a decision based on the text. Procedure or order can't be more important than deciding cases.

If you allow one person to get away with this, others may see it as an invitation to do worse. Filings are often a matter of immutable public record and it makes sense that there should be rules as to what goes into them.

What is the act of deciding cases if not a carefully constructed procedure meant to keep order? What is the harm of telling a lawyer to try again, this time following the rules?

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

#103

Post by some_furry »

mukesh610 wrote: post #36
rootsudo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hate's a strong word for this interaction.

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

#105

Post by ianferrel »

TechSquidTV wrote: post #104

I find it disturbing that a judge has blocked the legal system because they don't like a lawyer's logo.

They didn't, though. No one has lost access to the legal system. They just said they had to resubmit without the watermark on every page.

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

#107

Post by impossiblefork »

striking wrote: post #102
impossiblefork wrote: post #98

I think it's a mistake to have rules about filings. Maybe it's distracting, but if the filing has been done, there should be no reason for the court not to read it and make a decision based on the text. Procedure or order can't be more important than deciding cases.

If you allow one person to get away with this, others may see it as an invitation to do worse. Filings are often a matter of immutable public record and it makes sense that there should be rules as to what goes into them. What is the act of deciding cases if not a carefully constructed procedure meant to keep order? What is the harm of telling a lawyer to try again, this time following the rules?

You hear the case, however it's presented, and then you decide.

In Swedish courts the court evaluates evidence as it likes. If the judges and sort-of-half-judge-half-jury-Nämdemän agree that something can be concluded, then they're allowed to conclude that.

Obviously procedure is useful, but hearing the complaint is more important.

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

#108

Post by impossiblefork »

voidfunc wrote: post #100
impossiblefork wrote: post #98

I think it's a mistake to have rules about filings. Maybe it's distracting, but if the filing has been done, there should be no reason for the court not to read it and make a decision based on the text. Procedure or order can't be more important than deciding cases.

Nah this is not the place to let folks get cutesy. If anything the standards should be strict and uniform.

Yes, the dragon is terrible and it's very inappropriate, but someone can't behave sensibly may still be someone whose case the courts must hear.

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

#109

Post by rzzzt »

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…

Major Major Major from Catch-22?
Post reply on HN