At National Review, Jim Geraghty has one called "Jill Abramson, and Why Most Women Should Cut Themselves Some Slack." By "Cut Themselves Some Slack," he means don't worry your pretty little heads about any economic injustice you may have hysterically imagined you've experienced. Part of his argument:

As I was saying, employers are people (“Corporations are people, my friend!“) and there will be good ones and bad ones. The bad ones tend to have karma bite them in one way or the other — most often by watching their best, or perhaps most motivated and talented employees leave to work elsewhere.

Either that or they'll grow fat and rich on the exploitation of their workers, though Geraghty won't notice because the free market is dreamy and the exploited are generally the working poor, who are gross.

I’d argue very few Americans really benefit from buying into Democrats’ (and the New York Times’s! ) preferred simplistic, demagogic narrative that America’s workplaces are a Kafkaesque, dystopian landscape of nasty male bosses conspiring to pay their female employees less. This viewpoint may in fact hold women back. If you perceive your boss as a sexist, conniving shyster who’s out to rip you off, then it’s going to be hard to show up every morning and do your best work. And whatever your circumstances, you’ll probably benefit, directly or indirectly, from doing your best work.

You're only hurting yourselves; c'mon, smile, baby! Then he tells the ladies that men have it rough, too, but you don't see us guys complaining, and (I swear to Christ) that you girls should try it sometime:

I am speaking broadly, and generalizing when I make this next statement: Men do worry about this sort of thing, but they don’t talk about it. They’re generally less likely to obsess about it, and/or publicly beat themselves up about it. There are not nearly as many bestsellers about the struggles of working fathers, magazine covers asking “Can Men Have It All?”, daddy blogs with passionate arguments and comments sections aflame, etc. 

It's like Geraghty never saw an MRA rant or Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser.

...the guys’ approach certainly is an one that involves less angst, self-doubt, and self-flagellation for failing to live up to some preconceived notion of how all of those roles should be fulfilled.

Also, a woman who thinks more like a man would understand why I want to have my cock sucked every morning.

For lagniappe with the emphasis on the yap, National Review also offers James Lileks chasing the not-all-men meme off his lawn.

Actually, pointing out that you’re not one of [the rapists and abusers] would indicate that you’re not the problem, and hence are part of the solution.

Let me ease your pain, ladies, with old matchbooks and accounts of my trips to Target! Eventually the lack of strawgirl response convinces Jimbo he's not being listened to:

I suppose this is useful information for men who want to have tendentious arguments about male perfidy with the sort of person who might want to put a “trigger warning” on Winnie the Pooh because a reader might have a honey allergy, but most men don’t. In fact, most –

Oh, never mind. Why state the obvious?

I didn't want to talk to you bitches anyway!

Have a nice electoral map, guys.

That Kat can barely move for the number of interesting cases emerging from the Patents Court at the moment.  The latest offering, out today, is the Salesian (geddit?) judgment in the case of Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Richter Gedeon Vegyeszeti Gyar RT [2014] EWHC 1666 (Pat) (22 May 2014).  Merpel has decided to use the term Salesian to refer to judgments that are in either the literal or figurative sense not Arnoldian.

No, not THAT Salesian...

But seriously, this brief validity-only decision of Mr Justice Sales relates to EP(UK) 1 448 207, directed to a dosage regimen for use of levonorgestrel as a method of emergency contraception.  Generics had applied for revocation of the patent.  The claims of the patent, in the name of Richter Gedeon Vegyeszeti Gyar RT were in the following terms:

1. Pharmaceutical composition as single application dose, characterized by containing 1.5+ 0.2 mg of levonorgestrel as active ingredient in admixture with known excipients, diluents, flavoring or aromatising agents, stabilizers, as well as formulation-promoting or formulation-providing additives, commonly used in the pharmaceutical practice.
2. Use of 1.5+ 0.2 mg levonorgestrel for the preparation of a pharmaceutical for emergency contraception.
3. The use as claimed in claim 2, wherein the pharmaceutical is for the administration of a single application dose up to 72 hours of the coitus.

Sales J applied the Pozzoli test (which judgment he also quoted at some length).  This can be set out briefly as:

(1)(a) Identify the notional "person skilled in the art";
(b) Identify the relevant common general knowledge of that person;
(2) Identify the inventive concept of the claim in question or if that cannot readily be done, construe it;
(3) Identify what, if any, differences exist between the matter cited as forming part of the "state of the art" and the inventive concept of the claim or the claim as construed;
(4) Viewed without any knowledge of the alleged invention as claimed, do those differences constitute steps which would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art or do they require any degree of invention?

After considering the person skilled in the art and their common general knowledge at some length in relation to Pozzoli step 1, he considered in relation to Pozzoli step 2 that

 "for emergency contraception" involves a claim that it will provide a reasonable level of effectiveness in achieving prevention of pregnancies, broadly comparable to other existing treatments which are available for that purpose, such as would make it potentially worthwhile to use it for that purpose, taking into account the other possible benefits associated with its use (such as avoidance of physically intrusive intervention, lesser side effects, greater prospect of successfully finishing the treatment etc). But, on proper interpretation, the claim does not go further than this. 

Levonorgestrel

The state of the art consisted of the common general knowledge and an article ("the Killick article"), reporting, inter alia, research by Dr von Hertzen  for the WHO regarding  the effectiveness of a regimen involving a single dose of 1.5 mg of levonorgestrel, as compared (in particular) with the two-dose regimen which was in widespread use.  This article included a mis-statement of the dosage of levonorgestrel used in the one dose regimen in the project as 1.5 g rather than 1.5 mg.  The inventive concept of the claims, that differs from the state of the art under Pozzoli step 3, was thus judged to be the one dose regimen based on a 1.5 mg dose, supported by a claim of efficacy in light of the completed WHO study.

Following rather inevitably from this, under Pozzoli step 4 Sales J found that (despite the mis-statement of the dose):

In my judgment, the report in the Killick article about the WHO research project, as read by a relevant person skilled in the art, made it obvious that use of a single dose of 1.5 mg of levonorgestrel within 72 hours of intercourse was likely to be a viable method of emergency contraception. From that report, it was obvious that such a regimen could be pursued and investigated with a reasonable or fair expectation of success. 

This Kat was rather pleased to see that Sales J mentioned a "cross-check for my conclusion", which looks suspiciously like the "final sanity check" that this Kat earlier advocated.  The judge stated:

Looking at the matter more broadly in terms of the kind of contribution to human knowledge that the patent system is intended to incentivise and reward (cf Pozzoli  at [25]-[29]), as a cross-check for my conclusion, I consider that the additional research work (finalising the study which was already well advanced as reported at the time of the presentation in September 2000) and additional information (confirmation of the preliminary findings presented in September 2000) were not of the character or extent that one could reasonably describe them as a significant additional contribution to human knowledge such that one would expect them to attract protection in the form of a patent monopoly of exploitation. The possibility of using the single dose regimen involving levonorgestrel for emergency contraception had already been substantively revealed and attested by the extant research findings reported in September 2000 as an obvious likely way forward in the field of emergency contraception, notwithstanding the caveat regarding the need to finish the study mentioned at the end of the Killick article. 

An objection of insufficiency was not considered further by the judge in the light of the main conclusion on obviousness.  Although he was "impressed"  by the patentee's submissions, he concluded "it is unnecessary and inappropriate to say anything further about this."

In this video i am going to show the installation process of Chakra GNU/Linux 2014.05 after that i am going to do a overview of the operating system and show some of the applications pre-installed.

Chakra GNU/Linux is a user-friendly and powerful distribution and live CD originally forked from Arch Linux. It features a graphical installer, automatic hardware detection and configuration, the latest KDE desktop, and a variety of tools and extras.

DOWNLOAD
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/chakra/Chakra-2014.05-Descartes-x86_64.iso


PLEASE SUBSCRIBE AND FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER!!
https://twitter.com/ribalinux


Blogger
http://ribalinux.blogspot.pt/


Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/theribalinux


Google+
https://plus.google.com/u/0/110348492032614636584/posts


GET 20 GB OF FREE CLOUD STORAGE FOR YOUR LINUX BOX
https://copy.com?r=YOSJw9


Music
"Golden Days" (by Topher Mohr and Alex Elena)
Youtube Audio Library