●● IRC: #techbytes @ FreeNode: Wednesday, November 04, 2020 ●● ● Nov 04 [00:37] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/10/hague-court-of-appeal-sets-dutch.html?showComment=1604307148895#c3237108687640730423 [00:37] schestowitz " [00:38] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Hague Court of Appeal sets Dutch approach to equivalence, reversing District Court in pemetrexed saga - The IPKat [00:38] schestowitz The key question for the doctrine of equivalents here is whether this limitation, clearly on the basis of art. 123(2) EPC, also limits the scope of protection. The CoA explains why not, and I think the reasoning is persuasive: after all, all patent documents (including the PCT application) must be interpreted on the basis of Art. 69 EPC, whereas the test for art. 123(2) EPC is novelty. Those methods of interpretation are different, with [00:38] schestowitz novelty being much more literal than scope of protection. Hence, a PCT application, and the patent subsequently filed on the basis thereof, will have a certain scope of protection, but because of the more literal test applied for the purposes of at. 123(2) EPC, that scope of protection might not be capable of being claimed as such. [00:38] schestowitz The CoA held here that this means a 123(2) EPC limitation cannot be an indication that the scope of protection is limited accordingly. I think that's right. [00:38] schestowitz It's not clear to me from your comment whether you disagree with that finding: you think this is a case of poor drafting. My question to you is: where was the drafting error made? [00:38] schestowitz I could see the argument that it happened already in the PCT stage, i.e. the original application should have disclosed more specific examples than just pemetrexed disodium (which was Eli Lilly's own product and therefore mentioned as a preferred embodiment). But at that stage, the application related to antifolates generally: was the patent holder nonetheless obligated to write down every single salt that could be used with pemetrexed? [00:38] schestowitz What about other antifolates? The purpose of art. 69 EPC is to avoid imposing such strict conditions on patentees, so long as the proper breadth of the inventive concept is clearly disclosed, and satisfies all material requirements for patentability. I think that is the case here, so I think the case was properly decided. [00:38] schestowitz And, having disclosed the invention in a manner that makes clear that it would work with any salt, the next question is: what reasonable expectation can third parties entertain that Eli Lilly nevertheless wanted to limit its scope of protection to pemetrexed disodium, specifically? This happened explicitly in the context of art. 123(2) EPC, so for the reasons set out above, it doesn't imply a willful limitation of the scope of [00:38] schestowitz protection. [00:38] schestowitz Returning to the example of Bayer/Sandoz, the case was decided differently there because the invention as initially claimed was limited to a SPECIFIC COMPOUND, even if there had been a disclosure that it would work with others as well. Here, it was not limited in that way: a general class of compound (antifolates) was disclosed and claimed, then narrowed down to pemetrexed generally, then -- on the basis of a formal objection -- [00:38] schestowitz narrowed down to pemetrexed disodium. It's a fine line, but I think it can clearly be drawn: in the first case the patentee signalled interest in a limited scope of protection by failing to claim the other compound as well, but here Lilly did no such thing. [00:38] schestowitz You're right that I don't have a lot of experience drafting pharmaceutical patents--I'm not a patent attorney by training. But I did think about this problem as I wrote the post, and I'd be curious to hear where you think my analysis is wrong. [00:38] schestowitz Lastly, on your point of inviting litigation. If I may, I would criticize your post for posing a false dichotomy: courts don't face just the two options you present, but instead must come to a balanced and fair decision given the circumstances. Of course I don't think that increased legal uncertainty and, as a consequence, a rise in litigation rates are a good thing. But I also don't think that fair protection for patentees should be [00:38] schestowitz sacrificed to maximize legal certainty. If maximum legal certainty were the purpose of the patent system, it would look very different. But instead art. 69 EPC directs us to find a middle ground, and I think the CoA did so properly in this case. [00:38] schestowitz " [00:38] schestowitz " [00:38] schestowitz Dear Max, thanks for your thoughts--and I appreciate you being outspoken, even provocative. [00:38] schestowitz I agree with you that the doctrine of equivalence should not be relied upon to correct sloppy drafting. The patent social contract places great power in the hands of patentees by allowing them to draft their own claims, and I think they should be subject to strict scrutiny when doing so. This has been recognized in Dutch case law for a long time, and a 2016 decision by the Supreme Court serves to illustrate this (Bayer/Sandoz, ECLI:NL: [00:38] schestowitz HR:2016:196). There, the patent claimed a method and the claims specified that it should be performed with an acid. But the description mentioned it could just as well have been applied with a base. The Supreme Court (and the CoA before it) refused to apply the doctrine of equivalents in this case, since an acid is simply not a base, and if the patentee would have wanted to claim protection for both, they should have done so. [00:38] schestowitz Now, let's take a look at what happened in the present case. [00:38] schestowitz The initial claim 1 read as follows: 1. Use of a methylmalonic acid lowering agent in the preparation of a medicament useful in lowering the mammalian toxicity associated with an antifolate, and the medicament is administered in combination with an antifolate. [00:38] schestowitz This claim therefore generally covered antifolates, but because a combination of vitamin B12 and an antifolate was not novel, the claim was subsequently amended to cover only pemetrexed, which was understood to mean pemetrexed in combination with any acceptable salt, including (as specified in claim 4), pemetrexed disodium: [00:38] schestowitz 1. Use of pemetrexed in the manufacture of a medicament for use in combination therapy for inhibiting tumor growth in mammals wherein said medicament is to be administered in combination with vitamin B12 or a pharmaceutical derivative thereof. [00:38] schestowitz 4. Use according to any one of claims 1 to 3 wherein pemetrexed is pemetrexed disodium. [00:38] schestowitz Now comes the crucial part. The examiner raised a 123(2) objection because the only working example of pemetrexed that had been disclosed was pemetrexed disodium: [00:39] schestowitz The subject matter of present claims 1 reading use of pemetrexed and claim 13 a product containing pemetrexed do not find base in the application documents as filed. The term pemetrexed in the wording of these claims and the corresponding passages on amended description is certainly a distinct compound (CAS Registry number 137281-23-3) of the pemetrexed disodium (CAS Registry number 150399-23-8) expressed [00:39] schestowitz on original document description page 2, line 6 and page 6, line 16. Said amendment beyond the content of the original document is therefore not allowable (Art. 123 (2) EPC). [00:39] schestowitz Consequently, the claims had to be limited to pemetrexed disodium. However, the CoA held (and I understand that this was not really disputed) that (i) the skilled person would, on the basis of the common general knowledge, know that the invention would also work with different salts; and (ii) the application clearly said so much, even as filed in the PCT stage. [00:39] schestowitz " [00:39] schestowitz " [00:39] schestowitz WARNING: I'm going to be provocative here. But I do it deliberately, to stimulate further debate, because I think that would be beneficial. [00:39] schestowitz I welcome the exchange of views prompted by my Comment #1 but have an uneasy feeling that Mr Dijkman lacks long years of experience drafting pharmaceutical patents and so is not in a position to judge what an elementary goof occurred in the drafting of the patent here in suit. [00:39] schestowitz What I'm suggesting is that it is not a good idea for the courts to rescue Applicants who make egregious drafting errors. It is not good for the health of the patent system to excuse such grotesque failures of drafting. [00:39] schestowitz The point is that in the invention we have here there is an anion and a cation, of which the anion is the active complex organic principle (pemetrexed) and the cation is merely a necessary but trivial electrical charge-balancing positively charged inorganic counterpart particle (sodium ion, potassium ion, or something similar). Nothing could have been more self-evident or obvious than to claim at the level of generality of "pemetrexed [00:39] schestowitz salt". Had Applicant claimed that invention, the true invention, at that level of generality ie precisely the level of generality supported by the disclosure and rendered plausible by the disclosure, litigation would not have been needed. No hindsight was needed, to see that a claim to pemetrexed was indicated, right from the get go, the blank sheet of paper on which the claims are first drafted. Any qualified European Patent Attorney [00:39] schestowitz would have seen that instantly. The problem here is that the case was drafted and filed in the USA, which when it comes to patent drafting is "on a different planet" from the rest of the world. [00:39] schestowitz Now, Mr Dijkman, and other readers, my question to you. Should the courts be in the business of fomenting more patent litigation or should they instead concern themselves with efforts to damp down the amount of patent litigation? I ask because the way this case has turned out is, in my opinion, a potent generator of more litigation, arising from a reduced level of legal certainty about how claims are to be construed in Europe, and what [00:39] schestowitz counts as an infringement. [00:39] schestowitz I see you are an associate of a leading patent litigation firm. Your assessment then as to what attitude the patent courts of Europe should take towards levels of quality in patent drafting interests me greatly. [00:39] schestowitz " [00:51] *schestowitz has quit (Quit: Konversation term) [00:51] *schestowitz (~schestowi@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [00:51] *schestowitz has quit (Changing host) [00:51] *schestowitz (~schestowi@unaffiliated/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes ● Nov 04 [01:12] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) [01:13] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) [01:14] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [01:15] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [01:22] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) [01:22] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) [01:22] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [01:22] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [01:33] schestowitz https://joindiaspora.com/posts/19347102#8ff09bc0ffc1013875d1722ef41c0a88 [01:33] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@linux@joindiaspora.com: The 11 Best Linux Distros for Programmers http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/143951 #GNU #Linux #TuxMachines #News [01:33] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes--> www.tuxmachines.org | The 11 Best Linux Distros for Programmers | Tux Machines [01:33] schestowitz " [01:33] schestowitz I would most certainly not put Manjaro on that list. Though it is nice and sleek for your average desktop user, they are borderline hostile to programmers, not supporting cross-compatibility with Arch - and not supporting the vast Arch distribution library. Furthermore, Manjaro has no Build System to substitute for the one present in Arch. So, you cannot use the build system from Arch, nor is there any other option. [01:33] schestowitz https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Build_System [01:33] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-wiki.archlinux.org | Arch Build System - ArchWiki [01:33] schestowitz And Raspian is an odd choice. You are going to spend quite a lot of time waiting for your big project to compile on a Pi computer. [01:33] schestowitz " [01:33] schestowitz https://joindiaspora.com/posts/19340808#2c82dce0ff360138e06b101b0efced44 [01:33] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@linux@joindiaspora.com: GNOME Sushi Doesnt Work in Ubuntu 20.10, But There is a Fix http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/143917 [01:33] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes--> www.tuxmachines.org | GNOME Sushi Doesnt Work in Ubuntu 20.10, But There is a Fix | Tux Machines [01:33] schestowitz " [01:33] schestowitz ue sushi is so my favorite ! [01:33] schestowitz Loom loreilleliletlamain viddac.fr [01:33] schestowitz Loom loreilleliletlamain viddac.fr - a day ago [01:33] schestowitz because space bar [01:33] schestowitz " [01:36] *GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes [01:45] schestowitz >>> Attached is how the new layout renders on Firefox. I've cropped out the [01:45] schestowitz >>> FF menus and such leaving just what is otherwise visible. I think it [01:45] schestowitz >>> could use some tweaks, especially in the pulldown menu. [01:45] schestowitz >> Seems like a CSS out-of-date issue. Can you flush out the existing CSS? [01:45] schestowitz >> Or go directly to its URL, press CTRL+F5 (IIRC for Firefox).? [01:45] schestowitz >> [01:45] schestowitz >> http://techrights.org/wp-content/themes/ocadia/style.css?BLAH [01:45] schestowitz >> http://techrights.org/wp-content/themes/ocadia/style.css [01:45] schestowitz >> [01:45] schestowitz >> I saw the same layout before I forced the CSS to be flushed out. [01:45] schestowitz >> [01:45] schestowitz > Ok. It seems fixed now that I have cleared the browser cache. [01:47] schestowitz > [snip] [01:47] schestowitz > [01:47] schestowitz > http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-011120.html#tNov%2001%2011:25:48 [01:47] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | IRC: #techrights @ FreeNode: Sunday, November 01, 2020 [01:47] schestowitz > [01:47] schestowitz > That is a request for a development machine. It could eventually be [01:47] schestowitz > converted to production as services are moved over but in the early [01:47] schestowitz > stages, that is experimentation. If that approach is interesting then, [01:47] schestowitz > maybe rent a VPS for a fixed amount of time? [01:47] schestowitz > [01:47] schestowitz > chroot is only a superficial separation of only the file system. If we [01:47] schestowitz > had been on FreeBSD we could have set up a simple jail instead. That [01:47] schestowitz > would have provided isolation, but chroot does not. [01:47] schestowitz If uptime isn't critical, why not run it off a laptop here (with remote access). Would upstream speeds or ISPs be obstacles at this scale? [01:48] schestowitz > There's no way he's "afraid" of hacks unless someone connected to the [01:48] schestowitz > FSF coup is still making him afraid of hacks-- saying it's bad for rms, [01:48] schestowitz > bad for FSF, or bad for him "coming back" and to "be careful" (i.e. silent.) [01:48] schestowitz > [01:48] schestowitz > The way they got rms to go along with the coup against him was to play [01:48] schestowitz > up the threat-- we know the people who did that were not being honest, [01:48] schestowitz > they were betraying him. [01:48] schestowitz > [01:48] schestowitz > They're obviously still doing it. The FSF is still compromised, or [01:48] schestowitz > someone connected is. [01:49] schestowitz He has just told me he cannot make a decision on whether to do an interview with us or not. Sometimes talks to him about it, I assume... [01:49] schestowitz context: [01:49] schestowitz schestowitz [01:49] schestowitz Interview with RMS work in progress [01:49] schestowitz Nov 01 22:07 [01:49] schestowitz schestowitz [01:49] schestowitz "Will a Q&A be a possibility this month?" [01:49] schestowitz Nov 01 22:08 [01:49] schestowitz schestowitz [01:49] schestowitz seems he's afraid of what some hacks might say [01:49] schestowitz -------- [01:49] schestowitz > As much as I expected to find fault with BurntSushi's note on copyleft, [01:49] schestowitz > it's for reasons I've PARTIALLY defended even recently. [01:49] schestowitz > [01:49] schestowitz > I don't assume he's sincere and I do note he works for one of the worst [01:49] schestowitz > shill factories, but at the moment I'm talking about the argument itself. [01:49] schestowitz > [01:49] schestowitz > I would probably file it under trolling, but the closest I can do to [01:49] schestowitz > that is file it under "likely shill, argument is probably a troll". [01:50] schestowitz > Thanks to an unconstitutional law similar to one Biden wrote, the USA [01:50] schestowitz > broke most of its promises in October of 2001. [01:50] schestowitz > [01:50] schestowitz > Donald Trump, who would not have won the 2016 election if the DNC had [01:50] schestowitz > not betrayed its own voters by defrauding Sanders, is an openly fascist [01:50] schestowitz > leader. But that only make the country half-fascist. [01:50] schestowitz > [01:50] schestowitz > As of today, the so-called "left" of the half-fascist USA will most [01:50] schestowitz > likely replace a republican fascist president with a democratic one, [01:50] schestowitz > making the former USA into the Fascist States of America. [01:50] schestowitz > [01:50] schestowitz > It's one thing to have one prominent side supporting fascist traitors, [01:50] schestowitz > it's quite another for both prominent sides to. [01:50] schestowitz > [01:50] schestowitz > As of tomorrow, pretty much every American you greet will be fascist. [01:50] schestowitz > But they'll be fascists with the /best intentions/, of course! Not [01:50] schestowitz > including what they did to Sanders, twice. Elections have been fake for [01:50] schestowitz > a long time anyway. But the voters still think it's real, and (nearly) [01:50] schestowitz > all support fascism, once you cynically narrow things down to two [01:50] schestowitz > fascist choices. If that's not a fake election, there is no such thing. [01:53] schestowitz > Well, you got it in before noon on the East coast. You didn't have to [01:53] schestowitz > but it's even better, cheers. [01:53] schestowitz > [01:53] schestowitz > Obviously the prediction of who wins could technically go either way, [01:54] schestowitz > that is the point, isn't it? But if I'm wrong, let's hope it's one of [01:54] schestowitz > many things Americans can prove me wrong about. Let's hope. [01:54] schestowitz > [01:54] schestowitz > I support America's constitutional prohibition against British rulers [01:54] schestowitz > (or rulers from other countries) but apart from that, there is no real [01:54] schestowitz > significance today regarding the old differences between the States and [01:54] schestowitz > the remainder of the British Empire. I know we share (as neither of have [01:54] schestowitz > any) joy in the fall of the USA-- but I mark its date today, November [01:54] schestowitz > 3rd, 2020. 1776-2020 is a very good run indeed, perhaps it should have [01:54] schestowitz > been longer. I am of course, not joking at all. This is by far one of [01:54] schestowitz > the most historical days in centuries, at least in the Western hemisphere. [01:54] schestowitz > [01:54] schestowitz > We could say it was October of 2001, but in all fairness I think it [01:54] schestowitz > still had a chance. I was hoping for a president Feingold-- the ONE [01:54] schestowitz > senator who opposed flushing the Constitution down the toilet. Take [01:54] schestowitz > note: Democrat. [01:54] schestowitz > [01:54] schestowitz > As I've explained before, we know that HMTW/E (she's "a pretty nice [01:54] schestowitz > girl") is just a figurehead now, and that's where she will stay without [01:54] schestowitz > provoking a crisis to rid her of that status as well. Symbolically, she [01:54] schestowitz > holds ALL power which she bestows on the rest. She derives it [01:54] schestowitz > (symbolically) from God. [01:54] schestowitz > [01:54] schestowitz > God -> Royalty -> Government [01:54] schestowitz > [01:54] schestowitz > In the USA, it is like this: [01:54] schestowitz > [01:54] schestowitz > The People -> The Constitution -> Government [01:54] schestowitz > [01:54] schestowitz > In the former American system, The Constitution takes symbolic place of [01:54] schestowitz > the Queen and the people take the place of God. Of course this only [01:54] schestowitz > means the system is agnostic, if that (I think that's fair to say but [01:54] schestowitz > some will argue-- "In God We Trust" of course came later) but if more 1 [01:54] schestowitz > in 7 people on Earth believe in the God of Abraham then they're welcome [01:54] schestowitz > to say: [01:54] schestowitz > [01:54] schestowitz > God -> The People -> The Constitution -> Government [01:54] schestowitz > [01:54] schestowitz > But that isn't how the State actually works, which isn't say that it's [01:54] schestowitz > "Godless" but that it's most certainly NOT a theocracy. (And thank God [01:55] schestowitz > for that...) [01:55] schestowitz > [01:55] schestowitz > So what you have now is more like: [01:55] schestowitz > [01:55] schestowitz > Corporate Military -> PATRIOT Act -> Fascist figureheads -> Private law [01:55] schestowitz > [01:55] schestowitz > (IowaOhm should have fun with this one, but thanks to v1rshkhnfkjnf I [01:55] schestowitz > had to agree with him earlier today.) [01:55] schestowitz > [01:55] schestowitz > That's not the USA, the USA no longer exists. More's the pity, it [01:55] schestowitz > honestly had its charms. [01:55] schestowitz > [01:55] schestowitz > Switching figureheads in this system changes not a thing. It's still [01:55] schestowitz > fascists running it all. Freedom it ain't. [01:55] schestowitz > [01:55] schestowitz > Would that this were only true of America, but we don't ignore the trend. [01:55] schestowitz > [01:55] schestowitz > **Smedley Butler was right**, even before rms was born. RMS of course, [01:55] schestowitz > was right too. [01:55] schestowitz > [01:55] schestowitz > Happy Hacking. [01:55] schestowitz > [01:55] schestowitz > [01:55] schestowitz > P.S. The picture was fine, but I'd love to know what the real name of [01:55] schestowitz > that building is, or least where it's from. Given the title, it probably [01:55] schestowitz > works no matter what. [01:55] schestowitz It is called "freedom", apparently.... ● Nov 04 [02:08] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) [02:09] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) [02:09] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [02:11] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [02:16] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) [02:17] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) [02:18] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [02:19] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [02:38] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) [02:39] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) [02:42] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [02:42] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [02:48] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) [02:49] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) [02:51] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [02:52] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes ● Nov 04 [04:42] *GNUmoon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) ● Nov 04 [05:16] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) [05:16] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) [05:26] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [05:27] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes ● Nov 04 [06:20] *Ascavasaion (~Edhelheru@101.189.47.15) has joined #techbytes [06:52] *GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes ● Nov 04 [07:25] schestowitz >>> I'll know over the next few days if it is possible or not. [07:25] schestowitz >> Thanks for the thought. It is much appreciated. [07:25] schestowitz > No problem. So I'm guessing the smaller form factor is more appealing? [07:25] schestowitz > [07:25] schestowitz >> Right now I'm not sure how to use an extra machine, as I'm already [07:25] schestowitz >> surrounded by 4, 3 of which dual screened. At a cost like this maybe we [07:25] schestowitz >> can turn it into a shared server of some kind? I assume it uses not so [07:25] schestowitz >> much power, no more than a laptop, probably a lot less. [07:25] schestowitz > They use a lot less and they can run headless just fine, too. If you [07:25] schestowitz > have wireless then a model 3A+ would use the least amount of power. [07:25] schestowitz > It'd be quite feasible to host mirrors a gopher or an Onion service. [07:25] schestowitz > The latter won't even need any ports opened on the router or depend on [07:25] schestowitz > being at any particular location or IP address. [07:25] schestowitz > [07:25] schestowitz > Or it could be used as a development server before pushing out big [07:25] schestowitz > changes to the production server. Back in the "old days" one had a [07:25] schestowitz > development server and only pushed changes to the production sites after [07:25] schestowitz > testing. [07:25] schestowitz > [07:25] schestowitz >> Maybe serve some of techrights (like text-only versions) from home only, [07:25] schestowitz >> directly? If ISP permits? [07:25] schestowitz > The ISP account would have to be for Bytesmedia for some of the choices, [07:25] schestowitz > if I understand correctly. Around here at least the ISPs are fussy [07:25] schestowitz > about business use even if it is low traffic. [07:25] schestowitz Thanks, I will look into this. Maybe IPFS might be a fit for that, but I need to check terms of use. [07:26] schestowitz >>> http://techrights.org/irc-archives/irc-log-techrights-011120.html#tNov%2001%2011:25:48 [07:26] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-techrights.org | IRC: #techrights @ FreeNode: Sunday, November 01, 2020 [07:26] schestowitz >>> [07:26] schestowitz >>> That is a request for a development machine. It could eventually be [07:26] schestowitz >>> converted to production as services are moved over but in the early [07:26] schestowitz >>> stages, that is experimentation. If that approach is interesting then, [07:26] schestowitz >>> maybe rent a VPS for a fixed amount of time? [07:26] schestowitz >>> [07:26] schestowitz >>> chroot is only a superficial separation of only the file system. If we [07:26] schestowitz >>> had been on FreeBSD we could have set up a simple jail instead. That [07:26] schestowitz >>> would have provided isolation, but chroot does not. [07:27] schestowitz >> If uptime isn't critical, why not run it off a laptop here (with remote [07:27] schestowitz >> access). Would upstream speeds or ISPs be obstacles at this scale? [07:27] schestowitz > The speeds would be more than adequate. If the ISP allows incoming SSH [07:27] schestowitz > then that is all that is needed. If not then at minimal risk a [07:27] schestowitz > dedicated key or certificate could be used to bounce through the main [07:27] schestowitz > server using a reverse tunnel or WireGuard VPN. [07:27] schestowitz > [07:27] schestowitz > An IFPS-nbased mirror would be one use-case for a Raspberry Pi. [07:27] schestowitz > Depending on the router it is connected to, it can be isolated on the [07:27] schestowitz > network. It could probably be connected to the main systems by a [07:27] schestowitz > WireGuard VPN, if that becomes relevant. [07:27] schestowitz > [07:27] schestowitz > Speaking of isolating, on the Raspberry Pi, the whole system is [07:27] schestowitz > contained on the microSD card. So when that is removed and replaced or [07:27] schestowitz > erased, the result is an entirely new system. [07:27] schestowitz IFPS has been a pain to learn, but help is being offered. [07:29] schestowitz Re: This can't be accurate-- exit polls [07:29] schestowitz > White women for Trump?** 44% Biden, 55% Trump [07:29] schestowitz > [07:29] schestowitz > Note females in general 56% Biden, 43% Trump [07:29] schestowitz > [07:29] schestowitz > As of 10pm EST. [07:29] schestowitz > [07:29] schestowitz > Source: NBC https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-elections/exit-polls [07:29] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.nbcnews.com | Live exit polls 2020: Election Day exit polls for Trump vs. Biden [07:29] schestowitz > [07:29] schestowitz Re: Oh My God [07:29] schestowitz > Have you seen this? [07:29] schestowitz > [07:29] schestowitz > https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/watch-and-share-rewind-to-help-explain-free-software [07:29] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.fsf.org | Watch and share "Rewind" to help explain free software Free Software Foundation Working together for free software [07:29] schestowitz > [07:29] schestowitz > [07:29] schestowitz > What a goddamned, delusional, masturbatory fucking FARCE! This is PURE [07:29] schestowitz > bullshit. What's the reality here? NO, FSF, this has fuck-all to do with [07:29] schestowitz > what's actually happening in the free software world, or the planet [07:30] schestowitz > Earth. You're just making shit up. They might as well say that [07:30] schestowitz > LibrePlanet is a real planet. [07:32] schestowitz > Unlike Roy, I don't do things strictly by RSS. In fact the main thing I [07:32] schestowitz > get by RSS is Techrights. [07:32] schestowitz > [07:32] schestowitz > However, I have my own means of "removing feeds from my RSS" like Roy does. [07:32] schestowitz > [07:32] schestowitz > I said if the FSF did not talk about youtube-dl, I would stop talking [07:32] schestowitz > about them. At least, I will "remove them from my RSS feed", the FSF [07:32] schestowitz > does not exist. [07:32] schestowitz > [07:32] schestowitz > The GNU front page happens to feature Hyperbola at the moment. That's [07:32] schestowitz > such a good sign (despite all the bad signs and the fact that they're [07:32] schestowitz > looking for people to help maintain Microsoft aspell and Bison) that I'm [07:33] schestowitz > going to keep the GNU website. [07:33] schestowitz > [07:33] schestowitz > But the FSF website, bye bye, the FSF is nothing but a TV show at this [07:33] schestowitz > point. It's the Kardashian Software Foundation, and it's a lot of [07:33] schestowitz > bullshit. I do not intend to visit the FSF website in the future. [07:34] schestowitz > *https://www.gnu.org/* [07:34] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 404 @ https://www.gnu.org/* ) [07:34] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | The GNU Operating System and the Free Software Movement [07:34] schestowitz > [07:34] schestowitz > *Can you help maintain a GNU package [07:34] schestowitz > ?* [07:34] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | Take Action - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation [07:34] schestowitz > [07:34] schestowitz > * Also, *these packages are looking for co-maintainers*: *** aspell [07:34] schestowitz > , ***bison [07:34] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | GNU Aspell [07:34] schestowitz > , gnuae [07:34] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | Bison - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation [07:34] schestowitz > , gnubik [07:34] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | GnuAE - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) [07:34] schestowitz > , metaexchange [07:34] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | Gnubik - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation [07:34] schestowitz > , powerguru [07:34] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | The GNU Metadata Exchange Utilities Website [07:34] schestowitz > , xboard [07:34] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | PowerGuru - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) [07:34] schestowitz > . [07:34] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.gnu.org | XBoard - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation [07:34] schestowitz > [07:34] schestowitz > [07:34] schestowitz > ** Maintained on**_Microsoft Github_* [07:34] schestowitz The GNU project needs YOUR HELP contributing to Microsoft [07:35] schestowitz > From the Fake Software, Muzzle Stallman homepage: [07:35] schestowitz > [07:35] schestowitz > "This community that we have, that we're building, that does so [07:35] schestowitz > much, has to grow. *We can't compete with Apple, we can't compete [07:35] schestowitz > with Google, directly, in the field of resources.* What we can [07:35] schestowitz > eventually do is head count and heart count.*We can compete on the [07:35] schestowitz > ground of ideology because ours is better."* [07:35] schestowitz > [07:35] schestowitz > -- Edward Snowden [07:35] schestowitz > , [07:35] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-media.libreplanet.org | Libreplanet 2016: The Last Lighthouse GNU MediaGoblin [07:35] schestowitz > NSA whisteblower, speaking at LibrePlanet 2016. [07:35] schestowitz > [07:35] schestowitz > [07:35] schestowitz > The /fuck you say/, Ed! You have no idea how wrong you were! ● Nov 04 [08:14] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) [08:15] *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) [08:19] *rianne__ (~rianne@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes [08:20] *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-118.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #techbytes ● Nov 04 [20:59] *GNUmoon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) ● Nov 04 [22:05] *GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes gemini://gemini.techrights.org/tr_text_version/irc-log-techbytes-041120.txt

-- Leo's gemini proxy

-- Connecting to gemini.techrights.org:1965...

-- Connected

-- Sending request

-- Meta line: 20 text/plain;lang=en-GB

-- Response ended

-- Page fetched on Sat May 18 05:49:04 2024