| Author |
Message |
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:33 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> writes:
| Quote: | "Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote
Peter Olcott wrote:
I eventually hope to transform it into a patentable invention.
|
[snip]
| Quote: | I have another patent pending invention that is nearly through the
process.
|
Then you'll be well aware that what you're doing here is considered to
be public disclosure and starts the one-year clock ticking on this
one. Also that if you incorporate any ideas suggested by others into
any of your claims, you have to be sure to list them as inventors or
you risk getting your patent thrown out.
(In my understanding as a non-lawyer with a fair bit of patent
experience, of course.)
| Quote: | I have been waiting more than three years so far.
|
That's about par. My average on granted patents is 3.2 years (median
3.1), with a minimum of 1.1 and a maximum of 5.2, although I've got
one pending for 5.6 at the moment.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It's not coherent, it's merely
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |focused.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Keith Moore
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:46 am
Post subject: Re: "Only a couple of million dollars" |
|
|
Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> writes:
| Quote: | On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 18:36:22 -0500, Robert Lieblich
robert.lieblich@verizon.net> said:
[...]
There's only a couple of million dollars at stake in this contract,
but other, larger ones loom.
"Only a couple of million"? I'm reminded of Senator Everett
Dirksen's quip, "You spend a billion dollars here and a billion
dollars there, and before you know it you're talking about real
money". Or words to that effect.
|
Working for a large company I have often seen it noted that one of the
differences between a small company and a large one is that a small
company can care about or be interested in a few million dollars.
This is typically noted wistfully, but with a realization that it
does, in fact, make sense. For a company with 100,000 employees and
$85 billion in revenue, a couple of million is nice if it's easy, but
they're far more interested in things that have the potential (even if
the risk is high) to come with two or three more zeroes attached.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The whole idea of our government is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this: if enough people get together
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and act in concert, they can take
|something and not pay for it.
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:10 am
Post subject: Re: "Only a couple of million dollars" |
|
|
On 02 Nov 2005, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote
| Quote: | Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> writes:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 18:36:22 -0500, Robert Lieblich
robert.lieblich@verizon.net> said:
[...]
There's only a couple of million dollars at stake in this
contract, but other, larger ones loom.
"Only a couple of million"? I'm reminded of Senator Everett
Dirksen's quip, "You spend a billion dollars here and a
billion dollars there, and before you know it you're talking
about real money". Or words to that effect.
Working for a large company I have often seen it noted that
one of the differences between a small company and a large one
is that a small company can care about or be interested in a
few million dollars. This is typically noted wistfully, but
with a realization that it does, in fact, make sense. For a
company with 100,000 employees and $85 billion in revenue, a
couple of million is nice if it's easy, but they're far more
interested in things that have the potential (even if the risk
is high) to come with two or three more zeroes attached.
|
That's also, I think, why substantial fraud can remain undetected
for longer than one would imagine.
Auditing appears to focus on (a) the little stuff at the bottom
that can be traced, and which adds up to substantial amounts (like
an annual budget for taxis), and (b) the big numbers of multi-
million pound contracts (whether it should be 525 or 550 million).
But frauds that work in between -- say finding a way to cream off
the occasional 75,000 here and there by turning a 525,615,000
contract into a 525,680,000 contract --- well, that's probably
easier to bury than stuff at either the low end or the high end.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 6:13 am
Post subject: Re: "Only a couple of million dollars" |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:10:01 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
<harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On 02 Nov 2005, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote
Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> writes:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 18:36:22 -0500, Robert Lieblich
robert.lieblich@verizon.net> said:
[...]
There's only a couple of million dollars at stake in this
contract, but other, larger ones loom.
"Only a couple of million"? I'm reminded of Senator Everett
Dirksen's quip, "You spend a billion dollars here and a
billion dollars there, and before you know it you're talking
about real money". Or words to that effect.
Working for a large company I have often seen it noted that
one of the differences between a small company and a large one
is that a small company can care about or be interested in a
few million dollars. This is typically noted wistfully, but
with a realization that it does, in fact, make sense. For a
company with 100,000 employees and $85 billion in revenue, a
couple of million is nice if it's easy, but they're far more
interested in things that have the potential (even if the risk
is high) to come with two or three more zeroes attached.
That's also, I think, why substantial fraud can remain undetected
for longer than one would imagine.
Auditing appears to focus on (a) the little stuff at the bottom
that can be traced, and which adds up to substantial amounts (like
an annual budget for taxis), and (b) the big numbers of multi-
million pound contracts (whether it should be 525 or 550 million).
But frauds that work in between -- say finding a way to cream off
the occasional 75,000 here and there by turning a 525,615,000
contract into a 525,680,000 contract --- well, that's probably
easier to bury than stuff at either the low end or the high end.
|
OY! They say that most criminals are caught because they do something
stupid. Something like inflating a contract from $525,615 to $525,680
and siphoning off the extra "$75,000".
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 6:32 am
Post subject: Re: "Only a couple of million dollars" |
|
|
On 02 Nov 2005, Tony Cooper wrote
-snip-
| Quote: | Auditing appears to focus on (a) the little stuff at the
bottom that can be traced, and which adds up to substantial
amounts (like an annual budget for taxis), and (b) the big
numbers of multi- million pound contracts (whether it should
be 525 or 550 million).
But frauds that work in between -- say finding a way to cream
off the occasional 75,000 here and there by turning a
525,615,000 contract into a 525,680,000 contract --- well,
that's probably easier to bury than stuff at either the low
end or the high end.
OY! They say that most criminals are caught because they do
something stupid. Something like inflating a contract from
$525,615 to $525,680 and siphoning off the extra "$75,000".
|
Yeah, that'd get them. But the really dumb ones are those who
don't get caught for the siphoning off: they get caught when they
brag about it to the hooker they then try to short-change by a few
bucks...
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 6:45 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message news:br12d9at.fsf@hpl.hp.com...
| Quote: | "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> writes:
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote
Peter Olcott wrote:
I eventually hope to transform it into a patentable invention.
[snip]
I have another patent pending invention that is nearly through the
process.
Then you'll be well aware that what you're doing here is considered to
be public disclosure and starts the one-year clock ticking on this
one. Also that if you incorporate any ideas suggested by others into
any of your claims, you have to be sure to list them as inventors or
you risk getting your patent thrown out.
(In my understanding as a non-lawyer with a fair bit of patent
experience, of course.)
I have been waiting more than three years so far.
That's about par. My average on granted patents is 3.2 years (median
3.1), with a minimum of 1.1 and a maximum of 5.2, although I've got
one pending for 5.6 at the moment.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It's not coherent, it's merely
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |focused.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Keith Moore
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
What I am doing here would not be public disclosure |
because all of this is already published. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 7:20 am
Post subject: Re: "Only a couple of million dollars" |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:32:56 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
<harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On 02 Nov 2005, Tony Cooper wrote
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:10:01 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
-snip-
Auditing appears to focus on (a) the little stuff at the
bottom that can be traced, and which adds up to substantial
amounts (like an annual budget for taxis), and (b) the big
numbers of multi- million pound contracts (whether it should
be 525 or 550 million).
But frauds that work in between -- say finding a way to cream
off the occasional 75,000 here and there by turning a
525,615,000 contract into a 525,680,000 contract --- well,
that's probably easier to bury than stuff at either the low
end or the high end.
OY! They say that most criminals are caught because they do
something stupid. Something like inflating a contract from
$525,615 to $525,680 and siphoning off the extra "$75,000".
Yeah, that'd get them. But the really dumb ones are those who
don't get caught for the siphoning off: they get caught when they
brag about it to the hooker they then try to short-change by a few
bucks...
|
Was I too subtle?
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 7:29 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:28:11 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Alan Jones" <atj@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:dft9f.105545$Ih5.67020@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message news:0zq9f.1084$5N1.480@dukeread08...
"William" <william@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message news:1130686085.245416.230110@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
So the idea that everyone could communicate from the same basis is
absurd?
Not absurd, just unlikely.
Is it mandatory that everyone continue to use words with slightly
different meanings between encoding and decoding of these meanings?
Not mandatory, just inevitable. You are trying to empty the ocean with
a thimble.
Oh, and by the way; people do not generally "encode and decode"
language. They write, speak, read, and listen to it. Get your head
around the difference and you will have learned a great deal.
--
WH
Ah you have never studied the communication process model?
The sort of things that I propose would be simple and easy with
sufficient software support.
Words and their organisation are only one way in which people communicate. Where does your model deal with vocal expression (some
of it non-verbal) or with the facial and bodily gestures that almost invariably form part of communication? Even in writing or
print, one's choice of words and expressions not usually made deliberately) conveys feelings and creates or confirms
relationships, and that may be much more significant than the apparent content of the message.
Language may be used to convey hints, doubts, suggestions, ironies and so forth. Creative language is often marked by multiple
ambiguity, in which the sense is not so much conveyed as created by the reader according to what in the text chimes with an
individual's experience both of life and literature. That's why, I suppose, one never reads or sees the same Shakespeare play
twice.
Returning to your original posting, if religious language doesn't allow for that kind of numinous multiplicity of response, I
doubt whether it has much to say that's worth considering.
If the message was stated such that misunderstanding was not
possible, then no one would get the wrong message. Many
travesties that were committed in the name of religion would
not occur. It would be completely obvious to all that these
travesties were not what was intended.
Assuming the existence of God (creator, etc.): he, God, is limited to |
communicating with a human either by implanting concepts in the person's
brain and leaving the person to articulate the concepts in their own
words, by putting words into the person's brain, or perhaps both.
Whatever the case, God is very seriously restricted by the limitations
of human understanding and by the limitations of human language.
Then the person God has communicated with, the prophet, has to attempt
to get the concepts across to other people.
God must be a very frustrated being.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 7:30 am
Post subject: Re: "Only a couple of million dollars" |
|
|
On 03 Nov 2005, Tony Cooper wrote
| Quote: | On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:32:56 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 02 Nov 2005, Tony Cooper wrote
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:10:01 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
-snip-
Auditing appears to focus on (a) the little stuff at the
bottom that can be traced, and which adds up to substantial
amounts (like an annual budget for taxis), and (b) the big
numbers of multi- million pound contracts (whether it
should be 525 or 550 million).
But frauds that work in between -- say finding a way to
cream off the occasional 75,000 here and there by turning a
525,615,000 contract into a 525,680,000 contract --- well,
that's probably easier to bury than stuff at either the low
end or the high end.
OY! They say that most criminals are caught because they do
something stupid. Something like inflating a contract from
$525,615 to $525,680 and siphoning off the extra "$75,000".
Yeah, that'd get them. But the really dumb ones are those
who don't get caught for the siphoning off: they get caught
when they brag about it to the hooker they then try to
short-change by a few bucks...
Was I too subtle?
|
Ah, I see.....hmmmm...yes. I really shouldn't try to do sums and
type numbers when I've come back from the pub...
G'night....
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 7:32 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> writes:
| Quote: | "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> writes:
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote
Peter Olcott wrote:
I eventually hope to transform it into a patentable invention.
[snip]
I have another patent pending invention that is nearly through the
process.
Then you'll be well aware that what you're doing here is considered
to be public disclosure and starts the one-year clock ticking on
this one. Also that if you incorporate any ideas suggested by
others into any of your claims, you have to be sure to list them as
inventors or you risk getting your patent thrown out.
What I am doing here would not be public disclosure because all of
this is already published.
|
Then your one-year clock is already ticking (on anything that's been
mentioned either here or in what's "already published"). And you
still have to worry about accidental co-inventors if you still have
yet to write the application.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |This isn't good. I've seen good,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |and it didn't look anything like
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |this.
| MST3K
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message news:pspibmgm.fsf@hpl.hp.com...
| Quote: | "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> writes:
"Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> writes:
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote
Peter Olcott wrote:
I eventually hope to transform it into a patentable invention.
[snip]
I have another patent pending invention that is nearly through the
process.
Then you'll be well aware that what you're doing here is considered
to be public disclosure and starts the one-year clock ticking on
this one. Also that if you incorporate any ideas suggested by
others into any of your claims, you have to be sure to list them as
inventors or you risk getting your patent thrown out.
What I am doing here would not be public disclosure because all of
this is already published.
|
See how ambiguous English can be?
Everything that I have said here has been public domain
for years. I haven't even conceived the really good stuff yet.
| Quote: |
Then your one-year clock is already ticking (on anything that's been
mentioned either here or in what's "already published"). And you
still have to worry about accidental co-inventors if you still have
yet to write the application.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |This isn't good. I've seen good,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |and it didn't look anything like
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |this.
| MST3K
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | I haven't even conceived the really good stuff yet.
|
Yes, we noticed that.
--
WH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:18 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"William" <william@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message news:1130983704.741510.258700@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
I haven't even conceived the really good stuff yet.
Yes, we noticed that.
--
WH
It seems that I have correctly disproved the generally held notion that semantic |
meaning can not ever be derived from words with 100% exactingly literal precision.
It only takes a single valid counter-example to fully refute any universal statement.
I have provided that single counter-example.
"I am going to the store."
AmericanEnglish(Statement(TransportationOfSelf FROM PresentLocation TO PlaceOfBusinessRetailMerchandise) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:25 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | "William" <william@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message
news:1130983704.741510.258700@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
I haven't even conceived the really good stuff yet.
Yes, we noticed that.
--
WH
It seems that I have correctly disproved the generally held notion
that semantic
meaning can not ever be derived from words with 100% exactingly
literal precision.
It only takes a single valid counter-example to fully refute any
universal statement.
I have provided that single counter-example.
"I am going to the store."
AmericanEnglish(Statement(TransportationOfSelf FROM
PresentLocation TO PlaceOfBusinessRetailMerchandise)
|
You keep saying that. I'm not, I think, the only reader who has shown
that the statement as it stands is fatally ambiguous in several
respects. But you don't want to know that.
Even if it were a valid counter-example, which it is not,a single
counter-example would not refute the general principle in the case of
language. For the umpteenth time, a language doesn't work like that,
and cannot be made to.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:16 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:41:57 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:4367FBF6.4DAB5584@verizon.net...
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 01 Nov 2005, Peter Olcott wrote
[ ... ]
These proposed standards are primarily intended for lawyers
and scientists where it getting precise meaning specified
makes the most difference.
Ah, now I get it -- This is all a plot to take bread out of the mouths
of lawyers and their dependents. Please cease and desist
immediately. I like eating.
I'm currently being paid to research the history of a building so
that the lawyers can argue whether or not, in terms of certain
legislation, the building is or isn't a "house".
Now,, one would think that "house" isn't an ambiguous term, but it
is in legal circles. The definition of a "house" isn't ambiguous,
mind you -- the act defines it -- but whether building (a)
qualifies as a "house" is another matter, and it's not a linguistic
one.
Oy, could I tell you stories! Here's one:
I'm engaged in a major lawsuit right now in which a shipbuilder
contends that the contractual term "total price" equates to the entire
sum of money due it from the Navy, and the Navy contends that it
applies to each contracted-for ship separately. This matters because
the contract price for each ship is not a firm number; it increases as
the cost of the work increases, though not dollar for dollar (there's
a formula for sharing) and only up to a ceiling. There's also a
separate formula for additional price increases to take inflation into
effect. Calculating the actual compensable costs and the ceiling is
not an easy process, but it can be done. The contract provides for a
final calculation of total price after the ship has been delivered,
and that's when all the numbers get reconciled.
The shipbuilders's costs for ships 1 and 2 exceeded the ceiling, but
for ship 3 (the last under the contract) its costs were below the
ceiling. If the shipbuilder is right, it gets to aggregate the three
ships and set off the below-ceiling amount on ship 3 against the
over-ceiling costs on ships 1 and 2. There's only a couple of million
dollars at stake in this contract, but other, larger ones loom.
So okay, what does "total price" mean? Seems easy enough, doesn't it?
-- the aggregate price of all ships under the contract. But when you
read the contract, you discover that the original contract was for one
ship; the others were added later by the exercise of options. Worse,
the calculation of the original price for each ship comes down to a
last line that reads like this "Total Price -- $XXXXXXXXXX," Each
ship has its own total price. And each ship's final total price is
separately negotiated. Also, each ship was paid for out of a separate
annual appropriation. The shipbuilder is well aware that the Navy
cannot use funds appropriated for ship 1 to pay for ship 3, but this
is in essence what it's asking.
Some judge is going to decide what's right, and I'm not trying to tell
you that this case is open and shut in either direction. Quite the
contrary. But if you can get a major lawsuit going over the
definition of "total price," you can get it going over just about
anything. Nothing Peter Olcutt can do will even dent the volume of
litigation over such things -- or of anything else, for that matter.
But it is fun to watch him squirm.
If we had an automated ambiguity checker, this issue would have
been raised before the contract was signed. The contract would
have been amended by simply adding the words "per ship". Yes
this probably would put a lot of lawyers out of work, and thus
reallocated these funds to a more productive use.
The contract as described by Robert does have "per ship" cost |
calculations. The question appears to be whether there are external
principles and rules that govern the interpretation of this contract.
This contract floats in a sea of laws, rules and precedents.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.u.e) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in