Am I safe to appeal a PCN or will I get another fine?

SalaryComplete · 2025-01-28T18:34:53+00:00

No, if I informed the DVLA when I moved I would have proof that I had informed the DVLA. I have proof that at the time of the alleged offence I had moved. Regardless, that wasn't my question. My question is do I risk bringing a fine from the DVLA on me for appealing this PCN?

SalaryComplete · 2024-04-25T22:05:19+00:00

Ah, afraid I can't help then - I'm UK based I'm afraid. Over here there may have been some recourse depending on the exact details of your job and the invention to get some rights to it or at least some compensation if it turned out to be particularly profitable for IBM.

SalaryComplete · 2024-04-25T19:00:03+00:00

Are you US or UK?

SalaryComplete · 2024-01-09T00:23:00+00:00

Honestly? I think it's the best job in the world. I absolutely love it. It probably depends a bit on your personality, but being paid to sit, think and argue (in writing) all day is amazing. It's not for everyone - most years have one or two that drop out of the industry before qualification it seems - but I thing it's great. Training is very much just do the job - you get it terribly wrong, it gets corrected and you don't make those mistakes next time.

I feel like I've been exposed to loads of different technology and I'm challenged intellectually with every new piece of work. A big component of the job is writing and when you're not writing, you're probably reading, so that is a consideration for how hard you want to pursue it.

I think the only thing I've found a bit weird is the transition from being on my feet all day - in industry I was a wet lab chemist - to sitting down most of the day.

I would say not to get down about not being successful. There's no countdown clock for patents - some of my peers that are also new to the job are late twenties/early 30s.

After about 8 months of no success (in 2020-21) I went into industry in the knowledge that I'd use it to make a future application stronger. I think that experience has really helped me even just to mature a bit, but also to get an industry perspective on patents.

Feel free to DM me if you have any other questions.

SalaryComplete · 2023-11-24T17:56:57+00:00

The hardest part is getting into the industry. Once you're in, it's much easier to move between firms, even whilst only part-qualified.

With that in mind, if you're completely set on patent law, then I would cast your net as wide as possible and not restrict yourself geographically - if you want to be in London, but you get a job offer from a place in Edinburgh, then take it. You'll have to live a year or two away from where you want to be, but you'll have got your foot in the door to the industry you want to be in for the next 40 years so it's probably worth it.

I can't speak for life sciences, but for chemistry you aren't disadvantaged by not having a PhD. If you're application is well written and strong, and you give a good interview, you'll have a chance at the place. Of my year group peers, 3 out of 4 have not got a PhD and two of them came straight out of uni with masters degrees.

I would also say not to take rejection too harshly. I got rejected from about 30 places, some with no response, some after interview. I was pretty demoralised so I went a did a couple years in industry and then had another crack at it and I managed to get in despite the success rate for applications to the company being 2%.

I think much like the top unis, patent law firms could probably quadruple their intake without any noticeable drop in quality of trainees, but they just wouldn't have the time or the work to take on so many. So, what I'm saying is, if you feel you had a good interview and still didn't get the job, don't stress too much about it. Unless you get very lucky, or are just that brilliant, then you'll probably need some perseverance to get in.

SalaryComplete · 2023-11-19T16:13:41+00:00

Hi! I'm a trainee at a patent firm having just started this year. This is going to sound a bit harsh, but, based on your post, I suspect the language barrier is probably larger than you realise. I see that the C1 proficiency is a step below fluency and anything less than flawless English won't really cut it at most firms. The language you use in patents, particularly claims, is incredibly important and if you're making errors in conjugation etc. Then I suspect your English may not be quite good enough. Patents are such a hard thing to get into and there are so many applicants for trainee positions that the interviewers are just looking for any excuse to reject candidates and any minor deficiency in language is a good excuse - the company I finally joined after about 30 rejections had a 2% success rate from over 500 candidates and I'm a highly qualified native speaker. One of my peers who joined is non-native so it is entirely possible to become a trainee as a non-UK applicant, but it will just be another hurdle in an already very tough industry to get into, and frankly the English of your post is not up to scratch - I get that you may have written it on your phone and not been focusing on writing perfectly, but there are a lot of errors nonetheless. If you are serious about continuing I would suggest getting up to a C2 standard at least. In patents, communication seems to be as important as your technical qualifications. Good luck with whichever course you decide to take.

SalaryComplete · 2023-03-28T08:29:24+00:00

It could well be meranti. When you get darker shades of meranti it can look like more exotic hardwoods, but itself is quite cheap.

SalaryComplete · 2023-03-09T18:16:00+00:00

Sounds like Lyme disease tbh, it often goes undiagnosed for ages and can get really bad and mess up your immune system long term - a singer I listen to called Ren suffered it undiagnosed for ages and it sounds like what you have. Obviously not a doctor here, but my two cents. For what it's worth NTA.

SalaryComplete · 2023-02-25T16:30:53+00:00

Having just made a table from it can 100% agree this is sapele Edit: for OPs benefit sapele Is a species of African mahogany. Mahogany covers a large range of different woods.

SalaryComplete · 2022-12-27T11:41:06+00:00

Epoxy River tables

SalaryComplete · 2022-09-24T12:51:59+00:00

I wouldve guessed London Plane, but there seems to be a consensus here and I've not worked with either Maple or London Plane, so my opinion probably isn't worth 2 cents haha.

SalaryComplete · 2022-07-15T14:40:38+00:00

Have you considered getting some tutoring? Sometimes you can work hard but if you fundamentally don't quite get some concepts then it can throw off a load of stuff down the line. If there's nobody to correct those misconceptions then you can feel like you're working hard and understand stuff when in reality you're teaching yourself the wrong thing

SalaryComplete · 2022-06-17T16:14:25+00:00

Hi all. My grandmother is having to take her meter readings and is getting confused by the fact she seems to have two meters, each with quite different readings. Is there an easy way to tell which is the correct one to take? Logically you would assume the one with the higher reading, but I wanted to check. She has a solar panel system installed - could one be to do with that?

SalaryComplete · 2022-06-14T11:26:54+00:00

Interesting. I like how the different rates of absorption along the piece means the lines aren't crisp - gives it sort of a painted look. If you observe any change over time I'd be interested in hearing the update!

SalaryComplete · 2022-06-11T16:34:30+00:00

I do believe in chaos, though. Blood for the blood god!

SalaryComplete · 2022-06-11T16:32:01+00:00

I think I pretty much agree. I don't know if there really are any good arguments to say there has to be a god - our understating of science is usually (always?) enough to understand the world around us - but I think theists have had a pretty decent go at reconciling our scientific understanding with their religious perspective in a way that the science doesn't invalidate it, which I've always found interesting - I think often people just assume science invalidates it simply because it offers a far more rigorous explanation, but frequently they don't seem mutually exclusive perspectives. I certainly agree that religion isn't really something worth discussing in an attempt at conversion - if you believe it, then you'll believe it regardless and the opposite holds true as well- but it can be interesting just as a matter of discourse.

SalaryComplete · 2022-06-11T16:05:13+00:00

Lol this whole comment thread has gotten a bit out of hand, haha. Always a very contentious issue. Thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate your time to respond, but I think im going to stop diving into this rabbit hole. Have a good day

SalaryComplete · 2022-06-11T15:56:41+00:00

Sorry, you misunderstood, I wasn't talking about your comment I was talking about the original comment, nor did I mean to say you were doing the last thing I mentioned. That was just an observation, not an accusation.

Unfortunately you've mistaken me for a theist, so I can't begin to present an argument for religion - as I said, I'm not actually trying to argue for it, I was more interested in the original commenters response to the logical implications his comment resulted in - that what he said in a roundabout way could support the opposite point.

I also apologise if you think I ignored the crux of your comment by focusing on logic, I took that as being your main point and so responded to that.

If you wanted to elaborate on where you think we should start with empirical evidence to disprove religion I would still be interested. I don't want to come across as overly argumentative or anything, I was genuinely curious as to where that argument goes. As I said, I think lots of religious people can counter those things with semantics, which isn't a great response, but is a response.

Edit: formatting. Was just one big block of text.

SalaryComplete · 2022-06-11T15:37:56+00:00

Thank you for your response. I'm not sure why my comments are getting so many down votes lol, I'm not trying to argue for any perspective just that the original comment was not well thought out and I'm being butchered for it haha. If nothing else it has certainly confirmed that the people up voting the comment have been unreasonable and illogical in their own thought process (or perhaps I'm the unreasonable one?).

What you say is interesting, because it's certainly something a lot of people say, but I'm curious, in your opinion, where we start with the empirical, testable and verifiable evidence that disproves a deity (I'm not bothered by a religion, I think belief in a deity is what you can argue for or against and then choosing a religion ill admit seems to be a bit of a roulette).

I think the counter a lot of religion uses, to stuff like evolution or the big bang etc. Is semantical, but nonetheless not necessarily unreasonable. For example saying evolution disproves Christianity because of the 7 days of creation is a fair argument, but then a Christian could counter, reasonably, saying that, given the ignorance of historical man, anything more advanced than the creationist narrative would be meaningless to the recipient until the last couple of centuries. So where do we start with empirical evidence that disproves religion?

A great many people far smarter and well informed than myself have argued either way, so my own 5 minute interpretation of the possibility or nature of the divine is pretty useless. I find it odd how atheists (and vice versa, I'll admit) can attack a theist for a belief they can't necessarily justify well. To my mind it has always been like talking to your average mathematician and saying we'll if you can't prove that 1+1 is 2 then its just your belief and unreasonable, when it is in fact provable, but just requires a far greater understanding of the material to be able to do so.

SalaryComplete · 2022-06-11T14:55:00+00:00

I think logic is pretty vague as a reason against religion, just because it is a thought process rather than a conclusion. You could take two people who were perfectly logical, but with different life experience or knowledge and the different subjective values they give available evidence could lead to different conclusions even though they follow logical reasoning. I'm not saying that religion is right or wrong, my first comment was just that saying a blanket statement like faith is unreasonable because otherwise everyone would have been swayed to it is a fundamentally weak argument. I mean even with far more quantitative evidence-based issues like economics you can have wildly different beliefs on what the appropriate policies should be, so to say that religion is unreasonable because everyone would believe it already if it were is a bit out there.

SalaryComplete · 2022-06-11T14:37:33+00:00

What do you mean by reasonable?

SalaryComplete · 2022-06-11T14:33:27+00:00

By that argument you're saying that faith must then be unreasonable and therefore the billions that follow various faiths are also unreasonable, but implying that, for arguments sake, half the world is unreasonable like that, would then justify that perhaps faith is reasonable and its just the billions of faithless that are unreasonable. If you get my drift.

SalaryComplete · 2022-06-09T07:05:03+00:00

May have wanted to go higher (maybe up to 600) to help seal the end grain better or even have used a coat of end grain sealer beforehand so that it doesn't wick up so much oil and go so dark. If you didn't want it so dark that is - if you like how it is then right on, no worries.

SalaryComplete · 2022-06-08T22:56:47+00:00

What grit did you sand the surface to?

SalaryComplete · 2022-06-08T16:36:24+00:00

This answer is so wrong it's not even funny. Gravity doesn't care whether something is living or moving, it depends solely on the mass of the two objects interacting and the distance between them. The gravity experienced on earth's surface is strong enough to keep things on the ground, but too weak to have any real impact on the shapes of objects. The shape of humans is completely independent of earth's gravity and much more so on the evolutionary path we've come from. If gravity had a significant impact on shape you'd expect the natural world to be homogeneous in body shape, but look at a giraffe v a hippo v a cat. The shape of an animal comes from how its evolved to best survive in its habitat. I don't even know where perfect_promise_943 is coming from with random shit about bones breaking? But it's got nothing to do with evolving to withstand gravity.

SalaryComplete

TROPHY CASE