Lis was walking across the Mass Ave bridge the other day . . .

Lis spent part of Saturday at the Boston Public Library, but decided to walk to MIT to wait for me to pick her up.

As she was crossing the bridge on Mass Ave, the tune of "Seasons of Love" from Rent kept going through her head.

So I finished it up for her. Feel free to take it for filk rooms if you want it.

Three hundred sixty four point four Smoots and an ear
Three hundred sixty four point four lengths plus a smidge
Three hundred sixty four point four Smoots and an ear
How do you measure the length of a bridge?

In car-lengths? In footsteps? In minutes to bike it?
In wind-chill? In heatstroke? In weakness or strength?
Three hundred sixty four point four Smoots and an ear?
How do you measure interminable length?

How about Smoots?
How about Smoots?
How about Smoots?
Measure in Smoots.
A bridge of Smoots.

Three hundred sixty four point four Smoots and an ear
Three hundred sixty four point four lengths of a man
Three hundred sixty four point four Smoots and an ear
Who came up with this furshlugginer plan?

From Cambridge to Boston
Or Boston to Cambridge
Walking over the Charles
To the end of the bridge

Tho' the bridge is named Harvard, that name's not so great
So it's been called the "Smoot Bridge" since 1958.
Remember the Smoots! Remember the Smoots!
Measure in Smoots!
Oliver Smoot! Oliver Smoot!

An interesting legal question:

blackthornglade linked to a story from Saudi Arabia, where a family has sued a djinn living in the same house as them for harassment and theft.

Here are my thoughts on the issue, and, understand, these are VERY lay-person opinions. I could be wrong on ANY of my assumptions here, but this is what I was thinking, anyway. . .

Since it's Shari'a court, the court DOES arguably have juristiction.

The trouble with bringing court cases against non-material beings has generally been one of establishing juristiction. In US courts, there have been questions as to whether God Almighty, for instance, was properly served papers as a defendant: the claimant claimed that, as God is omniscient, God KNEW that He had been served, which should be sufficient to start things rolling, and that, as God is omnipresent, God was physically present in the courtroom, allowing Him to face His accuser, and that the trial could proceed.

However, the court wasn't convinced that it held proper juristiction.

Similar problems have come up when people have attempted to sue Satan for damages for ruining their lives.

In Iceland, elves and the like are NOT called upon to testify, nor are they usually named as defendants in cases -- rather, the court system recognizes that it exists, in part, to protect the rights of elves against human encroachment. The idea appears to be that the courts do NOT have juristiction over the elves -- and that, without a human agency demonstrating a proper respect, they might take matters into their own hands.

In Jewish law, G-d has been successfully sued, but getting redress of grievances has been difficult.

Djinns are subject to the Will of Allah, which suggests that they are subject to Shari'a law. In fact, some Djinn accepted the teachings of Mohammed, and follow Islam.

Unfortunately, there are also those who don't, and who exist to lead people astray, who are called "shaitan" --"accusers", like "Satan". There are, of course, also human shaitan.

But it seems to me that a Djinn is every bit as subject to a Shari'a court as a human is.

The question, to me, is, "Does a Shari'a court have juristiction over a NON-Muslim Djinn?" If it turns out the Djinn in question IS Muslim, of course, it's moot.