I wrote two pieces for Insider this week, one on prospects who could be recalled by contenders this summer and one placing thirteen top draft picks (#1-12, plus #16 for obvious reason) within their new organizations’ prospect rankings. I was not able to chat this week due to a lengthy flight delay on Thursday and the chance to hang with a longtime reader and now friend of mine who lives here in Omaha.
Also, with travel and some other stuff, I’m behind on dish blogging, but I finished Eowyn Ivey’s The Snow Child and it was wonderful.
And now, the links…
- I’ve been a fan of and advocate for CHVRCHES since well before their first album came out, but this appears to be the year they cross fully into the mainstream of pop music. Nerdist interviewed the trio at Firefly, including observations on their pop leanings despite their indie status. Personally, I have never disdained pop music for being pop, but disdain some pop music for being vapid. Anyway, if you haven’t heard the new version of “Bury It” featuring Hayley Williams along with Lauren Mayberry, it’s one of the best singles of the year:
- The U.S. patent system has been a disaster for about twenty years now, with no sign of it abating. Popular Mechanics followed one lawsuit by an inventor against a big company that presents a balanced look at how the system just doesn’t work.
- Why is Estonia, the tiny former Soviet state on the Baltic sea where the people speak a language that isn’t even Indo-European, one of the most tech-friendly nations on the planet?
- A burger made entirely from plant materials that looks, tastes, and even smells like beef? I’d try it. I’m no vegetarian, not by a long shot, but my diet is increasingly plant-based these days.
- This was good if horrifying: Buzzfeed Canada editor Scaachi Koul wrote about two times she was roofied by men, and how would-be rapists identify potential victims.
- Deadspin goes deep on the ugly, crooked business of gambling touts, focusing in particular on RJ Bell and Pregame.com. It’s an outstanding piece of longform investigative journalism.
- The Atlantic interviewed the author of a new book, The Poverty Industry, about how private companies are looting government funds intended for foster children and the elderly poor.
- I work for a Disney subsidiary, and thus am a Disney cast member, and have some indirect stake in the future of the company – especially as my direct employer’s revenues may be affected by declining cable subscriptions. This interview with Disney CEO Robert Iger was more candid than I expected and had some welcome news about our intentions in the digital, non-cabled space.
- Why would a strawberry grown locally cost more than one grown in California? Well, it comes down to economies of scale, cheap transport costs, and, most fundamentally, a question of what we’re paying for when we pay for produce.
- The story of the Trump campaign giving $35,000 to a phantom firm called Draper Sterling is more comical than controversial, but still an entertaining read.
- A fascinating video on the mapping of Laniakea, the supercluster of galaxies that contains the Milky Way.
- A mother whose baby nearly died of pertussis has some things to say to vaccine-denying parents.
- Dr. Alice Callahan, a science researcher and instructor at Lane Community College in Oregon, penned a great, unemotional op ed against the vaccine-denier film Vaxxed. If you have (idiot) friends who saw the film, or want you to see it, well, I doubt anything will change their minds but you should send them this anyway.
- Could the Orlando shooting lead to meaningful gun control legislation? I doubt it, but this Washington Post op ed argues it might because this time, the NRA’s opponent, the LGBT community, knows how to change the culture.
- The nasal-spray flu vaccine was just not that effective in the last several seasons, and the CDC has recommended discontinuing its use in favor of traditional, injected vaccines.
- One little-reported effect of the “Brexit:” Spain now wants shared sovereignty in Gibraltar, as the British enclave (which Spain has claimed for 300 years) voted 95% to remain in the EU.
- I love this New Yorker cover about as much as I hate the UK leaving the European Union:
I almost never like New Yorker covers. But OK. pic.twitter.com/LLbR69UHHu
— Dave Itzkoff (@ditzkoff) June 24, 2016
Song Exploder had a CHVRCHES episode this week. I haven’t listened to it yet (waiting for iTunes download) but I bet it’ll be great. http://songexploder.net/chvrches
Do you even have to guess whose side the Vaxxed filmmakers are on wrt the Canadian child who died unnecessarily from meningitis?
http://globalnews.ca/news/2780449/vaxxed-producers-interview-lethbridge-parents-found-guilty-in-meningitis-death/
CDC study ordered by President Obama shows guns are used for self defense 500,000 to 3,000,000 times a year. See below video or article by Slate titled “The surprising findings by the CDC.”
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/cnn-anchor-shut-down-actual-gun-facts
Here’s the Slate link rather than a link to a gun advocate’s interview citing two cherry-picked pieces of evidence: http://slate.me/KtPvBo.
There’s plenty of evidence in the CDC report that illustrates the need for increased gun control. And considering zero relevant politicians have called for banning guns, the report seems in line with increasing gun regulations to, at the very least, match car and driver’s license regulations.
@ Todd – Thanks for pulling the article.
I don’t agree that it’s an “advocate’s” interview. It was a debate on CNN and both sides were represented, and both referred to the same CDC study for their evidence.
While I agree with you that there are reasons to take steps in the gun control arena, if the CDC article is accurately stating that there are 500k to 3MM instances of self defense each year, that is an eye-opening statistic. Again, I am not saying that there aren’t statistics to support gun control advocates, just that the other side of the argument also has merit.
Fair enough. My quibble would be with the “other side of the argument,” part, because that seems to presume that one side is for not increasing gun regulations (which is true) while the other wants to ban guns (which is false). Nobody is talking about banning guns, so statistics on the use of guns for self-defense are moot. Increased gun regulations will not stop people from using them for self-defense. They WILL tackle some of the CDC’s other findings. Most alarming is the disproportionate gun violence in our country relative to other developed nations and how, even in the face of decreasing violent crime, it is still apparent that we’ve come to accept gun violence as a necessary aspect of our culture.
Moreover, it’s amusing to me that Erich Pratt was willing to cite the CDC study considering it includes definitive evidence that handgun regulation should be the top priority for gun regulation. I’m sure that is one of many CDC findings he chooses never to mention on the air.
I forgot to add how irritating it is that Slate chose to summarize one aspect of the CDC’s findings as, “Mass shootings aren’t the problem.” Perhaps, statistically speaking, they’re not *the biggest* problem. But they’re still a big fucking problem. Ignoring it would be a pretty pure form of stupidity, like a cancer patient with a broken leg deciding to ignore the broken leg.
I doubt he would mention it either. Usually people arguing for x don’t invalidate their own arguments on purpose.
I think where we disagree is the intent…I honestly do believe that the goal of one side is to disarm America. It would be political suicide to make the statement outright, though.
I am a first generation immigrant to this country. My parents came here when I was 5. Having come from a place that did not value the basic freedoms provided in the USA, I am always concerned when the rights of citizens are restricted and/or taken away. By this statement I am not referring to the strict meaning of “shall not be infringed” that is often cited, but more-so that laws are being passed that curtail the rights of citizens without due process, i.e. the No Fly List and the law just passed in Hawaii about having a review of your firearm ownership if you are arrested (notice it doesn’t state convicted, only arrested). If this same test was applied to your right to speech or property, the outcry would be much larger than what we see i regards to the 2A.
I honestly do believe that the goal of one side is to disarm America.
How many sides do you believe there are in this debate? If the answer is two, then I think your statement is false. If the answer is, say, eight, then yes, that’s probably quite fair.
We’ll have to agree to disagree then. I don’t think any relevant politician calling for gun control will ever call for banning guns completely, which means whether they internally want to disarm American or not is irrelevant. President Obama’s answer at the Indiana town hall meeting is the best read anyone could get on the Democratic party’s gun control platform: http://to.pbs.org/1r4z17P. It’s all right there, despite the NRA constantly stoking the “they’re coming for your guns!” fire.
While I, personally, would not have a problem banning all guns in this country, I see it as a political non-starter. Also, while I wouldn’t have a problem with it, I do not believe it is necessary. We can greatly diminish dangerous gun use by requiring a few hoops for everyone to jump through when they purchase a gun, thus quantifying what we all mean when we say “responsible gun owner.” Close the gun show loophole, increase accountability for the 85% of irresponsible gun sellers that do not follow background check laws, and require registration and training for all gun purchases. See? Nobody had their guns taken away.
I just think that any measures should target criminals and not the legal owners. A 2001 Justice Department survey found 0.7 percent of state and federal prison inmates bought their weapons at a gun show.
As far as the rest of your statement of requiring FBI background checks for all private sales (this is basically what the gun show loophole is) and training, I am in agreement. However, I disagree on registration. I do not trust the government with this kind of information. Moreover, registration has been the first step to confiscation, i.e. Nazi Germany.
FUCK, someone went to the “NAZIS FAVORED GUN CONTROL BUHHHHH” myth. Such unadulterated bullshit framing of the history.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/26/ben-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/
RJ Bell does remind me of “Smooth” Jimmy Apollo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOJyfgV8JDs
That is not the CDC stating 500k-3 million. It is a oft-used and thoroughly debunked number provided by James Kleck after a phone survey asking people if they used a firearm to defend themselves.
Scroll down and you can see how some of the numbers don’t work. Basically we would have over 100% of burglaries foiled by gun owners defending themselves. http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/06/04/ignoring-experts-fox-news-gets-its-fake-gun-fac/203883
The higher the percentage of gun ownership and the laxer the laws the more gun deaths there are in the state. Stand your ground law states have higher rates of homicide, concealed carry permit holders are more likely to drive aggressively (44%) and follow someone (77%)
Kleck has not been debunked. Below is a paper he wrote on the arguments that claim to debunk his data. If his numbers were not truthful (at least to some accepted degree), then the CDC wouldn’t be using it in their study. Moreover, if you read the CDC study on the section re: defensive uses of guns, the consensus among all of the studies performed, by various scholars, ALL state that the defensive use of guns is at least equal to the offensive use by criminals. This would mean at least 125k times a year.
Lastly, the organization you cited is funded by one of the worst men who ever lived. I concentrated most of my efforts to stick to the facts and not slander the source, but I feel in this case it warrants mention that Soros funds this group.
https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/journals/JFPP11.pdf
So we went from a range of 500K to 3M down to 125K? Interesting…
That New Yorker cover really is great.
I’m super interested in these veggie burgers that supposedly mimic beef. It’s been long enough since I’ve eaten a beef burger that I suspect I would personally find them off-putting (same with theoretical lab-grown meat), but anything that gets people to consume a larger percentage of plant-based calories is a win in my book, so I hope they succeed.
What plant based items are you eating more of? I’m also trying to eat less meat and have starting eating a lot more tofu and mushrooms.
Don’t think I answered you but more than anything else I’m eating more vegetables and fruits than I ever have in my life.
Hi Keith, I am a corporate patent attorney (disclosure – I do not work in the medical device industry, but I probably know attorneys who represent some of the companies mentioned in the article), so I recognize that my opinons might be a little bit different than yours on the patent system. I’m not sure how that article showed the issues that exist in the US patent system. There are issues, no doubt. But individual inventors losing their fights against big corporations is something that has been going on ever since the patent system started.
Yes, IPR proceedings have been used to successfully invalidate many patents (though the success rate has been falling). But that article did not get into any of the statistics as to how many of the patents that been invalidated via IPR were owned by a solo inventor, instead of a corporation. It just discussed one case, that while I agree is quite sad, doesn’t differ from any number of other cases that I’ve come across in my career. One case does not a system disaster make.
Further, the IPR process, while expensive, is significantly cheaper then patent litigation in federal court. By a factor of at least 20, and usually much higher. To the extent that a small business/solo inventor is not a patent holder, but has been threatened by a patent holder, the IPR process can be a godsend, due to that significantly lower cost. Not all innovators get patents, after all. Trolls go after more than just big corporations – as, for example, Adam Carolla and Marc Maron and other podcasters can tell you. An IPR can really make a big difference in helping small inventors and small businesses.
While IPRs do take place outside of the court system, it is a hearing before three experienced administrative law judges who are technically competent and have much experience with patent law. I love the federal court system, but, most Federal District Court judges do not have a technical background or patent law experience. This can create all sorts of havoc, as you could imagine.
A well defined, and very vocal, group of commenters have been complaining about the loss of rights for garage inventors, ever since the first changes to patent law took place in 1995. However, none of these folks – most of them patent lawyers themselves, or former lawyers, or experts who frequently testify in cases and/or help write briefs – ever talk about the real elephant in the room, which is that patent litigation in federal court costs way too much money. Typically, upwards of $2 million, and more like $4-6 million by the time you get through appeal. How is anyone outside of a corporation supposed to afford those kinds of legal fees?! Contingency arrangements generally only get you so far.
The other long-standing issue is the US Patent and Trademark Office itself. The examiner corps is constantly going through heavy levels of turnover. The job is seen as a gateway to bigger and better things, instead of a career. This might be because the compensation, compared to what you can make working for a law firm or corporation, is significantly lower. Further, there are no incentives to keep examiners around for a long time, so there is a lack of knowledge and experience. Not surprisingly, this leads to more patents that should never have been in the first place. And don’t even get me started on the out of date technology systems, and how Congress frequently takes money from the Office – which, by the way, is user fee funded, not taxpayer funded – to pay for other things, instead of allowing the Office to keep the monies it generates and invest them in new systems, career incentives for examiners, and so forth.
I feel bad for any inventor who thinks they have a wonderful patent and later is told that they don’t. I have not read the patent, or the opinions, or the art, so I can’t say if he should have won, or not. Maybe he was wronged, maybe the Examiner who initially examined his patent did a poor job. I just don’t see how adding a “some say that patent law has been changed to benefit corporations and screw with solo inventors, instead of the stated purpose of getting rid of trolls” line makes this sad tale any more or less illuminating about issues with the US patent system.
I certainly appreciate finding out about this article – I did not cross my desk at work yet – and the ability to talk my ‘shop’ with you, Keith. Thanks for venturing outside of baseball and for giving us a place to have intelligent, rational conversation.
TL, DR
I appreciate the long response and insight – I appreciate the contribution.
My main complaint with the PTO, as a consumer, is the acceptance in the late 1990s (and forward) of business model patents, software patents, and other “junk” that served no valid public interest. Patents have a legal purpose – to drive innovation. These patents did nothing to further that goal.
RJ Bell lawyered up and issued a demand letter to Deadspin/the author of the article claiming its libel and demanding retraction/modification: https://www.scribd.com/doc/316876906/Pregame-com-Legal-Demand-Letter-to-Deadspin
Methinks the sole purpose of the demand letter is for marketing tactic to deflect the content of the deadspin article. Libel has a very high standard and RJ Bell would want no part of the discovery process.
And, shocker, his lawyer is the Peter Thiel myrmidon who led the Hulk Hogan lawsuit. This is exactly the kind of investigative journalism we should be fighting to protect, not allowing big money to shut down.
I wonder if radio stations, like the ESPN affiliated WMVP here in Chicago, will still use him as a “gambling expert” guest when football season starts. Is the threat of legal action a response to some radio stations dropping him or simply Thiel reaching out to anyone and everyone that Gawker sites have said something potentially negative about?
When you say plant-based, I assume you are including grains and the like too? I don’t know why you wouldn’t but I do know some folks consider them differently because they aren’t fruits or vegetables.
Where do you get most of your protein? Beans? Nuts? I work out pretty avidly so need more protein than the typical person but still try to get as many fresh fruits and veggies in (and frozen ones, both for smoothies and for the convenience my life currently demands).
Hot damn! The Beyond Burger is available at the Whole Foods and some other specialty grocers in my area. I’ll try to pick some up and report back.
I’m still a meat eater, but have reduced the share of my diet that goes to meat and replaced it with more fruits and vegetables. I do eat a lot of nuts as well. My go-to road/game snack is a Kind bar or something similar.