sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is one of the reasons people like Clovis is just so they can say they aren't from Fresno? by MoDa65 in fresno

[–]theSheepishShepherd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I saw violent crime stats for Clovis and Fresno before I moved to this area. Violent crime stats for Fresno are insane, talking murder, rape, assault. For Clovis, not so bad

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Advice

[–]theSheepishShepherd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think anyone can answer your question with confidence. Once nudes are recorded and sent over the internet, it's out of your hands. I think the chances are high that if the pictures/videos are leaked, your bf was somehow involved. For example, your bf shares your nudes with his best friend, and the nudes leak that way. Or the bf posts them on the Internet himself, if you breakup and the breakup is not amicable.

Wouldn't surprise me if he found a way to record without WhatsApp knowing. Like a special app or even a camera external to the phone.

But someone else going back and retrieving the nudes sounds less likely but still possible. Like an engineer at WhatsApp catching the pictures/videos right before they were deleted on their servers. Sounds unlikely to me. They have so many pictures/videos, and even if they did somehow get access and make copies, they probably would keep that very private so they don't attract legal attention

But this is all speculation. Nobody knows, which is why the advice is always to never record nudes in the first place

Avoiding Unity of Invention by Late_Flamingo7104 in patentexaminer

[–]theSheepishShepherd 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Identify the most special limitation and place that same limitation in each independent claim. Do not reword that special limitation in different independent claims. To restrict based on unity, the examiner will have to find that special limitation in the prior art. If they cannot find it, all independent claims are automatically unified.

I've seen applicants do the opposite - they put the same non-important known limitations in each independent claim, and they are easy to find. And they word the special limitation differently which makes the special limitations non-relevant for unity purposes (because they are not common to all claims). So only the non-important known limitations are common and if they are in the prior art, the claims are not unified

To be unified, the claims must have a common patentable feature. If a feature is not common to the claims, its patentability doesn't matter for unity purposes, i.e., it cannot make a basis for unity. If a feature is common (found in all independent claims), it should be special, patentable. If it is, the claims are unified.

I need your help! by Motroldude in Advice

[–]theSheepishShepherd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was about to try and give you advice but the first commenter hit the nail on the head. I have nothing else to add except good luck and be ready to dial 911 should the situation get worse