From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Computers for Law (was Re: Advice to first year law students)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:00:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.002306.14077@leland.Stanford.EDU> shedevil@gw.home.vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell, J.D.) writes:

>Apparently, in Mike's mind's eye, he was seeing and thinking of 1Ls
>with little to no computer experience ....

Yes, but also 1Ls who have computer experience (such as Unix) but want a
superior tool for preparing law outlines.

> ... and who, once working, would
>only need or want word processing compatibility between their home and
>office computers.

No, I wasn't limiting my advice to such students. Home-office
compatibility is an easy problem to solve these days.

>In my mind's eye, based on my own, and only my own, personal
>experience, I was seeing and thinking of 1Ls who did have some
>computer savvy, as this was as often as not the case in my
>experience.

You should know that I recommend Macs even to those who have
experience on other platforms if they don't already own a home
computer. It's a better tool, IMHO. I myself was immensely more 
experienced with DOS and Unix platforms before I discovered the
Mac's very useful capabilities for law students.

>We had several 1Ls this year who were already online
>before school started, and running around UNIX like nobody's
>business.  I was also starting from the perspective of wanting to run
>more applications than just word processing between work and home,
>such as billing and calendaring programs.  

Well, the only lawyers I know who are running billing and calendaring at
home are not lawyers who have to worry about integrating their home
computers with those of their firm. (That is, they're solo practitioners
or very small firm practitioners.)

But as other posters have noted, running DOS and even Windows software
on Macs is quite doable these days.  (See Insignia Solutions's line of
PC-emulating software, for example.)

>I think that in the circumstances Mike is talking to [as I understand
>them] Mike is absolutely right, and I think that in the circumstances
>I am talking to that I am correct as well.

Well, I really don't think you were correct in your statement of the
compatibility problems. What you said *used* to be true, up to about
1988.

>But I do wish, Mike that you would stop using such unflattering terms
>when referring to my statements as "extremely out of date" [first
>posting] and "extreme exaggeration".  You probably don't even mean
>them to be unflattering but they do seem that way, at least to me.
>Besides, this subject is very subjective, not one based on hard facts
>alone, so I suggest that even an extreme point of view, had I
>evidenced one, would not be "exaggeration", but rather (over)zealous
>advocacy. :-)

You're correct that I didn't mean those terms to be unflattering. Of
course, I really do regard your statements as both out-of-date and
exaggerated, so if you can think of a way I could convey that meaning
without hurting your feelings, I promise to do so in the future.

(At this point, you should know that I did a lot of systems-integration work
in the '80s before I went to law school--hence my extensive experience on
multiple platforms, which perhaps gives me a few more "hard facts"
than most people choosing among platforms have access to. Hence the
irritating assurance with which I state my opinions on this particular
issue, for which I apologize.)

I also apologize for seeming to be unflattering. I repeat that this was
not my intention.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Newsgroups: misc.legal