This is an archive of past discussions with User:71.41.210.146. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Yeah, it's a bit of a pain. Using a hyphen sure looks a lot worse. Hopefully, browsers will start considering the variants different "cases" and so will match if case-insensitive matching is desired. I don't know a perfect solution. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
One thought I had was to add a fourth column, "value of bit from example diagram." Put an M in those cells for the markers. One thing that has stopped me from doing that is that I can't think of a concise column heading. Is it ok to use an asterisk and explain it in a footnote to the table? Jeh (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing.
As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact
status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Er, why can't it be both free and non-free? As the Template:PD-Pre1978 says, it's in the public domain in the United States. It might be non-free in other jurisdictions; I'm not certain enough to remove the other notice. (If you are, feel free.) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
If it has ANY non-free component that it cannot be tagged as PD, but if you can prove it was first published in the US prior to 1978 then only the PD-Pre 1978 is applicable...
First, let me say how happy I am that someone is using it.
With that out of the way, I made it so long ago that I'm not quite sure why I put the trailing brs, I think it was something to do with a spacing problem. That aside, as said, it's been awhile since I've made it, but I'm fairly certain you should be able to specify a custom color. I'll check the code after this message to check.— DædαlusContribs23:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The parameters you want should be fontcolor1 and fontcolor2, as well as background2 for the blue part of the bar being something other than blue. As to the computed percentage, I'll get to work on that.— DædαlusContribs23:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for creating File:SpongeConstruction.svg, but it looks like the original CC-by-3.0 license got changed to by-sa, and the (um, legally required) attribution to the original authors got lost. I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure if you intend to claim any interest in the converted file. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
In accordance with WP:BB, I went ahead and made the changes to commons:File:SpongeConstruction.svg. I hope I did it right; I'm not really familiar with the Commons' annotation standards and standard templates. If I was too aggressive in removing your credit or something else, please fix or revert as you see fit. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Lists of earthquakes
Hi, thanks for taking the discussion on this to the talk page. Would you consider removing or rewording the "This list is heavily biased to recent years or due to the development and widespread deployment of seismometers. Large earthquakes were not less common in the past, just records detailed enough to make magnitude estimates." text from the main page until this is resolved, since it reads like a personal viewpoint? (At least the second sentence, and perhaps change "This list is" to "This list may be".) I agree your statement is correct, just not worded well. The article is likely being heavily hit at the moment due to links from the Japanese earthquake article, so it's important it look good, thus me contacting you instead of letting this work itself out more leisurely. –flodded ☃ (gripe)16:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone else found a reference, so I edited it lightly enough to not break WP:3RR... I think it's mostly fine now, though still reads slightly biased but that could just be me. –flodded ☃ (gripe)17:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, 71.41.210.146. You have new messages at User talk:Sitush/Archive_1. Message added 21:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
End of validity of IDEA patent
In International_Data_Encryption_Algorithm 71.41.210.146/you wrote, circa May 19, 2009 about U.S. Patent 5,214,703, issued May 25, 1993, that is has an expiry date of January 7, 2012.
That date was later justified by another user with this reasoning:
"Note that the PGP FAQ still claims the expiry date of the US patent to be May 25, 2010. However, US patent law was changed in 1995 such that patents now expire 20 years after filing, not 17 years after issuing. This holds retroactively for all patents that had not yet expired at the time the changed law came into effect, and it thus holds for IDEA."
Agreed, the stated change in patent law did occur and does applies retroactively to U.S. 5,214,703. But IMHO the patent still expires 17 years from issue date, that is after May 25, 2010 as claimed in the PGP FAQ.
The key point is that the protection under the new law, as defined by 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(2), lasts "20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under section 120, 121, or 365(c) of this title, from the date on which the earliest such application was filed.". The patent claims priority w.r.t. a Swiss patent filed May 18, 1990, and that is the start of the 20 years period, which thus ends May 18, 2010, that is slightly before the end of the 17 year period which ends May 25, 2010. The protection afforded to the licensee by the old law is NOT removed retroactively, and thus protection ends May 25, 2010.
It sounds like you're right (you considered a detail I didn't), but you could explain the logic better: patents pending when the change was made (like this one) got the benefit of both rules, so the later of the two dates applies. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Correction: which of the three named sections (120, 121, or 365(c)) do you think applies? I see how 365(a) applies, but I'm not sure about 365(c). Do you understand that bit about "designating"? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
In my reading of 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(2), the applicable section would be 120 referencing 363: "An application for patent for an invention disclosed (..properly..) in an application previously filed (..) as provided by section 363 of this title (..reading:) An international application designating the United States shall have the effect, from its international filing date under article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office except (..)". I am not at all sure about all this, but at one point was told (on another case) by a real patent lawyer that the "foreign priority" section is precisely here to record which foreign patents shall serve as reference for both the start and end of the protection period, that is 20 years from the moment the first patent on the subject was submitted. My reasoning depends heavilly on that. At any rate, if the Swiss patent does not suit, the WIPO/EPO patent could, and that would put the reference filing date on May 16th, 1991, and expiry on May 16th, 2011 together with the EP patent. As of "designating", I understand this as the statement to the patent office of what foreign patent the applicant ask shall serve to establish the start (and end) of the protection period, which is to be performed as required in section 120.Fgrieu (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
RBU (radio station), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia, and please consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
