●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 ●● ● Mar 27 [00:12] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Mar 27 [01:43] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [01:49] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@qezxp5nudz5uq.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 27 [04:00] schestowitz[TR2] "MOVED" https://mastodon.social/ [...] [04:00] schestowitz[TR2] I wonder. [04:00] schestowitz[TR2] Did he do something to get shadowbanned? [04:00] schestowitz[TR2] spreading blood libel from Iran can kind of get you there. Mastodon views that as an image problem, as did Diaspora. [04:00] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-mastodon.social | Mastodon [04:33] schestowitz[TR2] Re: about SUEPO [04:33] schestowitz[TR2] > Dear Roy, [04:33] schestowitz[TR2] > [04:33] schestowitz[TR2] > In one of last articles about the Epo (More EPO Lies and SEO SPAM, [04:33] schestowitz[TR2] > Substance Protected Behind a Paywall of the EPO's Propaganda Arm, IAM [04:33] schestowitz[TR2] > ), I have read : "Thefull version is locked behind a SUEPO paywall, so it's merely a/choice/of paywalls." [04:33] schestowitz[TR2] > But there isn"t such a thing as a SUEPO paywall. You know the site of [04:33] schestowitz[TR2] > SUEPO, some articles are publicly available, others are internal and [04:33] schestowitz[TR2] > such the access is protected by a password. [04:33] schestowitz[TR2] > Is there something I didn't understand? [04:33] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 404 @ https://techrights.org/n/2024/03/20/More_EPO_Lies_and_SEO_SPAM_Substance_Protected_Behind_a_Paywall.shtmlNO_MENU_ ) [04:33] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://suepo.org/archive/ex24007cpe.pdf ) [04:40] *jacobk (~quassel@838aynky6btpe.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 27 [06:07] DaemonFC schestowitz[TR2]: I told someone this when they complained about USCIS fee hikes coming. [06:07] DaemonFC > The price increases only apply to applications filed after April 1st, not to people that already filed. [06:07] DaemonFC > Also, for the N-400 at least, the new fee schedule has a 19% increase, but if you're under 400% of the FPL you can pay half of the new fee. I don't know how that'll work. Probably just another form or a screener in the E-File system. [06:07] DaemonFC > Some people already qualify for a fee waiver and USCIS statistics show that they don't deny those cases at a higher rate. [06:07] DaemonFC > The system is funded by user fees. Everyone can thank all of these 2-3 million so-called "asylum" cases in the past two years for clogging the pipes and not paying anything. [06:10] schestowitz[TR2] "pipe" [06:14] DaemonFC :D [06:14] schestowitz[TR2] how can u check shadowbans? [06:14] schestowitz[TR2] in fediverse for example? [06:14] DaemonFC I don't know. [06:17] schestowitz[TR2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Mastodon/comments/11sp5zy/is_it_possible_to_get_shadow_banned_on_mastodon/ [06:17] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.reddit.com/r/Mastodon/comments/11sp5zy/is_it_possible_to_get_shadow_banned_on_mastodon/ ) [06:17] schestowitz[TR2] Following and followers at 0 [06:18] schestowitz[TR2] privacy status locked [06:22] schestowitz[TR2] looks like the account stopped federating [06:23] schestowitz[TR2] 5 days ago [06:26] DaemonFC schestowitz[TR2]: That administrator has a habit of making it so you can't follow anyone without permission and only followers can see your posts. [06:26] DaemonFC If he completely banned an account there would be no option to redirect. [06:30] schestowitz[TR2] ok, i cannot make sense of it [06:30] schestowitz[TR2] if you can, if there was indeed a sanction, it would mean not only twitter keeps banning this person [06:31] schestowitz[TR2] and it would serve to show we were all along very much justified [06:31] schestowitz[TR2] some people cannot coexist with society [06:47] schestowitz[TR2]
  • [06:47] schestowitz[TR2]
    New Zealand accuses China of hacking parliament, condemns activity
    [06:47] schestowitz[TR2]
    [06:47] schestowitz[TR2]

    The New Zealand government said it had raised concerns on Tuesday with the Chinese government about its involvement in a state-sponsored cyber hack on New Zealand's parliament in 2021, which was uncovered by the countrys intelligence services.

    [06:47] schestowitz[TR2]

    The revelations that information was accessed through malicious cyber activity targeting New Zealands parliamentarian entities comes as Britain and the U.S. accuse China of a widesweeping cyber espionage campaign. Both New Zealand and Australia have condemned the broader activity.

    [06:47] schestowitz[TR2]
    [06:47] schestowitz[TR2]
    • [06:47] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.straitstimes.com | New Zealand accuses China of hacking parliament, condemns activity | The Straits Times ● Mar 27 [07:16] DaemonFC schestowitz[TR2]: My guess is the immigration attorneys don't like this ELIS system at all. It's reducing interactions with USCIS down to something that works like TurboTax. [07:17] DaemonFC If 80% can just go to a wizard and pay the filing fee, then that's a big problem for them. [07:17] DaemonFC Then the clients that come pay them are guaranteed to be the 20% that are the worst/hardest cases to get through the system. [07:18] DaemonFC The IRS used to be a lot scarier even with a relatively simple tax filing. [07:18] DaemonFC Most people just did not know the procedure. [07:19] DaemonFC Tax consultants used to be a lot bigger. Then people switched to all these cheap tax filing wizards that ask you what forms you have and figure out which deductions and credits you can take and sent it in instantly. [07:20] DaemonFC Paper filing Immigration petitions is really really awful. I did it once and it was just for a work permit and they approved it but it was a mountain of papers and I had to know a lot of things that I used the I-485 and such as a cheat sheet for. [07:21] DaemonFC Once you basically know how to file things with them, it gets a lot easier. Where things get difficult is in cases where it's really weak or they can do something horrible if you mess the smallest thing up or the client is no good. [07:21] DaemonFC The worst that happens if you screw up a Naturalization petititon is almost always they deny it, you lose your filing fee, and the bad things stop happening there. [07:22] DaemonFC But they only deny 3.7% of cases. [07:22] DaemonFC And out of that 3.7%, like maybe 1 in 1000 is at serious risk of losing their green card. [07:24] DaemonFC There's basically a few ways botched N-400s turn into removal proceedings. They find that they screwed up in issuing a green card (not likely....they said we provided a lot of bona fides and they sent it to us bypassing the interview). They find that the immigrant has abandoned their residence in the US by taking long trips out of the country (can't happen, he hasn't been out of the country since he arrived), and criminal history after the green card was [07:24] DaemonFC approved that comes to their attention while they're looking again (nope). [07:27] schestowitz[TR2] ack [07:29] DaemonFC schestowitz[TR2]: I looked up the local office handling our case. It says 80% of these are completed within 8 months. [07:30] DaemonFC That's not a bad processing time for them. I think they prioritize N-400s over other forms. [07:30] DaemonFC Because the Adjustment of Status and Removal of Conditions forms are like 24 and 18 months. [07:32] DaemonFC schestowitz[TR2]: The worst people seem to get into immigration and social security law. [07:33] DaemonFC schestowitz[TR2]: I asked one of them how much it would cost to get my FOID card back and one quoted me at $1,000. [07:33] DaemonFC I filled out the form in Okular and wrote a letter in LibreOffice and printed it out at FedEx for about $1 and then put it in in envelope and sent it in the mail to the State Police. [07:34] DaemonFC 8 months later, my FOID card came in the mail. ● Mar 27 [08:06] DaemonFC schestowitz[TR2]: According to the "When can I ask about my case" tool, 130% of the expected processing time for all cases would be January 18th, 2025. [08:07] DaemonFC I don't think I'm as likely to screw this up as Catholic Charities would be. [08:08] DaemonFC The only good thing about having gone there is I knew absolutely nothing about Immigration Law at the time and if we had filed 15 days later, the government would have basically ended our marriage for us (Trump's new regulation, which has since been revoked.) [08:08] DaemonFC The new regulations from Trump would have made it impossible to even file our case. [08:08] DaemonFC And if we managed, they would have almost certainly said no. [08:11] DaemonFC schestowitz[TR2]: I figure if Trump gets back into office, it'll take him maybe 6-9 months to sabotage their policies again. [08:11] DaemonFC But he will manage to do it. [08:11] DaemonFC It won't take him years to do it this time because the regulations are already written and he can just start the process of implementing them as soon as there is a confirmed DHS Secretary. [08:12] DaemonFC So if he gets voted back in, the only thing that may stop him is if Democrats are still in charge of the Senate and can block his appointment. [08:12] DaemonFC An Acting Secretary cannot create new rules. [08:13] DaemonFC So keeping Trump out of office is the first throw of the dice as far as saving Immigrants from new regulations. [08:15] DaemonFC If he is elected, the saving throw would be "Do Democrats keep 51 Senate seats?" That would be a tough one. The 2-3 "Moderate" Republicans can't be counted on to block anything. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voted to confirm Amy Coney Barrett and then acted shocked when Roe was not "settled law" anymore. [08:15] DaemonFC They knew what she would do. [08:16] DaemonFC https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/reducing-processing-backlogs [08:16] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-egov.uscis.gov | Reducing Processing Backlogs [08:16] DaemonFC Their goal for an N-400 is 6 months to a decision. Chicago is managing about 8 months on average. [08:18] DaemonFC schestowitz[TR2]: I got myself a nice ankle brace. Having a much easier time walking now. [08:18] DaemonFC It's what they would have done in the ER, only.... "Not $14." [08:20] DaemonFC schestowitz[TR2]: One thing I've noticed is that every time I try to do something involving Mandy's immigration cases, the weather turns nasty. [08:21] DaemonFC When I mailed them the packet to renew his EAD, we had the worst thunderstorm I think I've ever seen and hail and some tornadoes in the area. [08:21] DaemonFC Then when they called us in for the hearing, we had the worst snowstorm in the area in over a decade that day and they were talking about maybe shutting the commuter trains down. [08:21] DaemonFC USCIS said anyone who couldn't make it would have their appointments rescheduled. [08:22] DaemonFC I said, "Like Hell." and we got on that train and we walked for miles through downtown in a snowstorm, during COVID, with the entire city looking abandoned and boarded up. [08:23] DaemonFC If they were there we were going to be there. [08:24] DaemonFC When I got back into town the roads were so iced up that my car was sliding around everywhere and my check battery light was coming on and off. I ended up driving us over to a bar that ignored the county's order to remain closed (COVID) and got us a gigantic pizza and then we went to see a movie, I don't even recall much of the movie, it was just nice to be there. [08:25] DaemonFC Halfway into the movie (nothing good was on because COVID, had the theater to ourselves....some utterly forgettable movie about space marines on some alien planet, direct to video quality too), my phone buzzed and they said that they were shipping Mandy's first green card (the conditional one). [08:26] DaemonFC schestowitz[TR2]: About the shadowbanning.... [08:26] DaemonFC It wouldn't be surprising at all if it was because of the anti-Semitic crap that he posts constantly. [08:27] DaemonFC Which hinges on Nazism and Holocaust denial sometimes. [08:27] DaemonFC The Mastodon Lobster, that is. [08:27] DaemonFC It doesn't ever cease to amaze me that the Holocaust deniers and such are always leftists. [08:28] DaemonFC Like really leftist lunatic "professors" and such. [08:28] DaemonFC Professors of what? [08:28] DaemonFC Nothing worth paying to learn. [08:28] schestowitz[TR2] my guess was the same [08:28] schestowitz[TR2] diaspora had similar issues [08:29] DaemonFC I'm glad that this particular Nazi is not in the United States. [08:29] DaemonFC Canada should take some off our hands. We're overloaded and Canada has been ruined for years anyway. [08:30] DaemonFC schestowitz[TR2]: It's trendy to say the shit. [08:30] DaemonFC I doubt most men who deny the Holocaust and "support the Palestinians" actually give a shit. [08:31] DaemonFC It's like Climate Change. [08:31] DaemonFC You get all about the Climate Change and then you get all kinds of pussy from crazy college girls or something. [08:31] DaemonFC I'll bet it works like that with this Palestinian crap too. [08:32] DaemonFC The only ones who really believe this shit are women. [08:32] DaemonFC Then some guys go along with it to get laid. [08:32] DaemonFC Men don't care about "the Palestinians" or the "Climate Change". They don't. [08:32] DaemonFC If they say they do, they're a pick-up artist. [08:33] DaemonFC I don't care about either issue, at all. Except to say that the False State of Palestine is a semi-recognized terror State that should have been dealt with a long time ago. [08:33] DaemonFC And they finally pushed too far. [08:34] DaemonFC And the only countries that recognize it are the worst countries on Earth....and Europe, so who the fuck cares? Not even ALL of Europe. [08:34] DaemonFC So parts of Europe and Russia and China, and some third world shit pits that are even worse than Russia and China recognize "Palestine". [08:35] DaemonFC schestowitz[TR2]: After we get the naturalization document I plan to make an in-person passport appointment for him. I am NOT sending THAT through the mail to anyone ever. [08:36] DaemonFC After all of the blood, sweat, and tears, and the agony of waiting for it, I am going to guard that document with my life. [08:39] *Disconnected (Network is unreachable). [08:39] *Now talking on #techbytes [08:43] schestowitz[TR2] makes sense, i guess [08:45] DaemonFC If I lose a birth certificate I can pay $10 and postage and get another one. [08:45] DaemonFC When you're not even from this country and a replacement naturalization certificate costs several hundred dollars.....that's something else. [08:46] DaemonFC I came across John Lennon's green card issued by INS. [08:46] DaemonFC https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/how-john-lennon-got-his-green-card-and-became-a-us-citizen/ [08:46] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-faroutmagazine.co.uk | How John Lennon got his Green Card and became a US citizen - Far Out Magazine ● Mar 27 [09:23] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [09:35] *Moocher5254 has quit (Quit: https://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.) ● Mar 27 [11:40] *lightbringer has quit (*.net *.split) [11:40] *rianne has quit (*.net *.split) [11:40] *roy has quit (*.net *.split) [11:40] *311AGXXXP has quit (*.net *.split) [11:41] *lightbringer (~mincer@freenode/user/lightbringer) has joined #techbytes [11:41] *rianne (~rianne@freenode-54p.goo.k31cok.IP) has joined #techbytes [11:41] *311AGXXXP (~quassel@freenode-vjedmj.ldvb.0amm.hij1op.IP) has joined #techbytes [11:43] *roy (~quassel@freenode-vjedmj.ldvb.0amm.hij1op.IP) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 27 [12:21] *roy has quit (*.net *.split) [12:22] *roy (~quassel@freenode-vjedmj.ldvb.0amm.hij1op.IP) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 27 [14:29] *Moocher5254 (~quassel@6i8ckjmvfhgyw.irc) has joined #techbytes [14:34] *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes [14:49] schestowitz[TR2]
  • R dtplyr: How to Efficiently Process Huge Datasets with a data.table Backend
    [14:49] schestowitz[TR2] In a world where compute time is billed by the second, make every one of them count. There are zero valid reasons to utilize a quarter of your CPU and memory, but achieving complete resource utilization isnt always a straightforward task.
    • [14:49] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-R dtplyr: How to Efficiently Process Huge Datasets with a data.table Backend | R-bloggers ● Mar 27 [16:01] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/discrepancies-in-description-should-be.html?showComment=1711480448677#c4693381108589128817 [16:01] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Discrepancies in the description should be amended in line with the claims, but do not affect interpretation of the claims (T 0447/22) - The IPKat [16:01] schestowitz[TR2] 'Doubting Thomas [16:01] schestowitz[TR2] Thanks for drawing my attention ...
    Doubting Thomas

    Thanks for drawing my attention to my misuse of English language. I did never meant you as a person, but as representative of applicants/proprietors (or opponents), what you certainly are.

    It is my true opinion that Art 69 main use should be to assess whether a claim infringes Art 123(3). Any other application of Art 69 would end up in le [16:01] schestowitz[TR2] ngthy discussions between ED and applicant/proprietor, especially if it should be applied as well to documents of the prior art.

    If a granted claim is unclear, lack of clarity will not be a ground for amendment, and there is then no choice but to look at the description. In such a case, the intended meaning becomes irrelevant. What matters is the soundest possible technical meaning the skilled person could give to a fea [16:01] schestowitz[TR2] ture.

    If the wording of the claim does not give rise to any ambiguity, there should be no need to resort to the description, especially in order to give features in the claim a different meaning, or intended meaning, be it broader or more limiting. A feature in a claim is to be considered at face value.

    Whether a national court decides later, that there is infringement by equivalents, there is nothing to say [16:01] schestowitz[TR2] , but it it is not the role of a granting authority to look at every possible intended meaning of a claimed feature.

    For example, if a claim comprises the feature ventilator, the skilled person understands that the feature relates to a device which moves air in a given direction. If the applicant associates in the description a heating device so that the ventilator only blows hot air, then it will be ignored when [16:01] schestowitz[TR2] reading the claim. A piece of prior art disclosing a ventilator will be novelty destroying.

    In T 447/22, the board rightly reacted to the pretence of the proprietor that, due to certain passages in the description, the guiding device could as well have a steering function. There is no acontextual reading of the description by the board to be seen in T 447/22.

    The board rightly disagreed with the proprietor, [16:01] schestowitz[TR2] since steering and guiding are two different functions and it is technically not possible to consider that the protruding parts have a steering function, even if the proprietor meant that this could be the case. By looking at the description in T 447/2, the board indirectly applied Art 69 and told the proprietor that its intended meaning was technically incorrect.

    If there is one good example of the difference between [16:01] schestowitz[TR2] an intended meaning and a correctly assessed meaning, in other words, a technically sound meaning, it is the device in claim 1 as granted in T 447/22. You could not have chosen a worse example than that in T 447/22 for illustrating what you see as a correct vs. incorrect application of Art 69.
    It is abundantly clear that yours and mine viewpoints are not converging. But claiming that only you have made use of a large amoun [16:01] schestowitz[TR2] t of rational analysis, or application of logic and reason, it extremely rude towards myself.

    Like for Art 84, support, I said everything I had to say, and vice-versa, so we better leave it at this.

    As far as Art 123(3) and Art 69 are concerned, I invite you to have a look at the recent decision T 2194/21 and the decisions discussed therein.
    ' ● Mar 27 [17:06] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/discrepancies-in-description-should-be.html?showComment=1711456064613#c3573193784369150013 [17:06] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Discrepancies in the description should be amended in line with the claims, but do not affect interpretation of the claims (T 0447/22) - The IPKat [17:06] schestowitz[TR2] "I never spoke about your personal motivations for taking certain positions.

    If that is the case, then I suggest that you avoid using the word you to refer to a third person (That as a proprietor, you want to push the limits of your interpretation in order to catch a potential infringer is understandable).

    Perhaps also stop making lazy assumptions about the motivations of paten [17:06] schestowitz[TR2] t monopoly proprietors. It is simply not true that all proprietors want the most extensive interpretation of the claims. Indeed, the mere existence of the IPQC demonstrates that not all patent monopoly applicants want the EPO to grant them the broadest possible claims, irrespective of validity concerns. Not everyone acts solely in accordance with their own personal interests and without a thought to the interests of so [17:06] schestowitz[TR2] ciety.

    Regarding the acontextual interpretation in T 447/22, I mentioned that to illustrate the broader point made in the preceding sentence, namely the fact that the EPO does not (routinely) interpret the claims in accordance with all of the provisions of Art 69 EPC and its Protocol.

    In a post on another blog, you have expressed the view that there are diverging lines of case law regarding the applicati [17:06] schestowitz[TR2] on of Art 69, and that:
    Strictly speaking Art 69 is only to be used when determining the scope of protection under Art 123(3) in opposition. No other part of the EPC relies directly or indirectly to Art 69 during procedures before the EPO.

    You now express the view that the approach of the board [in T 447/22]to claim interpretation is absolutely correct and technically sound, and is moreover [17:06] schestowitz[TR2] clearly in line with Art 69 and its Protocol of interpretation.

    Therefore, if I follow your reasoning, you believe that:
    - except for determining compliance with Art 123(3) EPC, Art 69 EPC should not be applied during procedures before the EPO; but
    - an example of a claim interpretation which follows this approach (and, in your view, is absolutely correct) is nevertheless fully in line with [17:06] schestowitz[TR2] Art 69 EPC and its Protocol.

    All that I can say to this is that I now understand why no amount of rational analysis, or application of logic and reason, has enabled me to understand how you arrived at your current viewpoint." [17:45] *psydroid2 has quit (connection closed) [17:51] *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 27 [18:34] *parsifal (~parsifal@uuar9r28yasyu.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 27 [22:06] *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/) [22:12] *jacobk (~quassel@32hz32it3ih2k.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 27 [23:36] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)