Jared Harper wrote:

To muddy the waters, how about the women who use "guys" in the context of "Hey, you guys." when addressing other women? . . . Are these women just misguided?

The language evolves Jared, even in our lifetimes. You've just witnessed it. It's been current that way among "younger" people for a decade or two.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

It got started in Brooklyn, with "youse guys" applied to everybody, and has become a neutral figure of speech. I wouldn't worry about it, but that doesn't mean other sexist or gender specific terms are OK. This is what Wikipedia has to say about the term:

"Guys", a group of two or more people, originally used to refer to groups of males, now commonly used to refer to any groups, although the singular "guy" might not be used to refer to an individual female.

Jared, I still have some ATSF HO brass locos and some other stuff I bought from you eons ago and ran across a note from you on an order, still in the original envelope, a while back in sorting through a box of train bits and pieces.
John Stokes
Bellevue, WA


To: STMFC@...: harper-brown@...: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 04:48:59 +0000Subject: [STMFC] Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models



--- In STMFC@..., "Bruce Smith" <smithbf@...> wrote:I assiduously avoid both> "gentlemen" and "guys" because they are not inclusive and ARE offensive to> some women.To muddy the waters, how about the women who use "guys" in the context of "Hey, you guys." when addressing other women? I have heard this most often in the Midwest, but I have also heard it in Georgia where I live. Are these women just misguided? Does it reflect a misoginistic imposition? Is it just some dialectic quirk in those regions of the country? Do the women addressed thus by other women feel insulted? Just wondering.Jared HarperAthens, GA

--- In STMFC@..., "Bruce Smith" <smithbf@...> wrote:
I assiduously avoid both

"gentlemen" and "guys" because they are not inclusive and ARE

offensive to

some women.

To muddy the waters, how about the women who use "guys" in the context
of "Hey, you guys." when addressing other women? I have heard this
most often in the Midwest, but I have also heard it in
Georgia where I live. Are these women just misguided? Does it reflect
a misoginistic imposition? Is it just some dialectic quirk in those
regions of the country? Do the women addressed thus by other women
feel insulted? Just wondering.
Jared Harper
Athens, GA

Denny:



I have to agree with you completely. You can call me anything you want to
as long as it is not late for a meal.



Paul C. Koehler



_____

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Denny Anspach
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 9:48 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: New Standards for Freight Cars Models



Gender issues: As a person who toiled quite sympathetically and
supportive deep within the feminist vineyards for a good of my life, I
am not in the very least offended to be among those addressed quite
politely as "Gentlemen".

Much ado about nothing- at all.

Denny

Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento

Gender issues: As a person who toiled quite sympathetically and supportive deep within the feminist vineyards for a good of my life, I am not in the very least offended to be among those addressed quite politely as "Gentlemen".

Much ado about nothing- at all.

Denny


Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento

On Tue, May 27, 2008 7:50 pm, atsfsd26 wrote:

Fellow list members,
Considering the vast majority of posts, including the one from Bruce
adminishing Di, don't use any salutation at all, Bruce's comments
rather smack of the pot calling the kettle black.

Dave,

In fact, if you check my posts, when I use a salutation, I use "folks" or
the southern inclusive terminology "y'all" and sometimes, the even more
inclusive "all y'all" (albeit rarely). I assiduously avoid both
"gentlemen" and "guys" because they are not inclusive and ARE offensive to
some women.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL

Mike-
Thanks. I see that they have been posted....
Charlie

"Hey A--holes:"

KL

This is NEVER appropriate, at least, not on the web. I have now ceased reading your posts, Kurt.

SGL

Kurt Laughlin writes:

"Umm, I believe he was addressing this Yahoo group in general and the authors
of various posts in particular, not the NMRA membership as a whole. I've
only been on here about a year and a half but I'm pretty sure I've never
seen a post signed by a clearly feminine name or a mention that an post
author was a woman. Thus, addressing the group as "Gentlemen" is probably
correct - at least with regard to gender."

Well, of course the STMFC does not issue standards, RP's, conformance or warrants defining the use of proper terms to be used in messages posted. Except, of course, when any term is used in an offensive manner to another member...multipied of course when that member is...well...me or Jeff Aley. Like reviews of models posted on the STMFC, I suppose one's verbage classifies oneself. In my case...I was not really offended when Didrik included me as a "gentleman" although, I might imagine, others that know me well might have been at least surprised.<G>.

Mike Brock

In American patent practice what the patent says means little or
nothing. The real test is whether the claims made in the patent will
stand up in court. Usually the aptent is contested on the basis pf
the claims are "obvious to anyone skilled in the art" or the patent
is a a "collection of well known devices".

The Patent Office will generally grant a patent if it doesn't look
like something already patented. Then it is up to the patent holder
to defend his patent in court bu filing a claim against infringement.

In short, a patent doesn't mean anything unless you have the deep
pockets to defend it.

Spent a good amount of my working years in engineering management
investigating and deciding if employee inventions were worth
patenting. In review several hundred disclouseres I can only recall
two that for which we actually applied for patents.

Chuck Yungkurth
Boulder CO





--- In STMFC@..., "Manfred Lorenz" <germanfred55@...>
wrote:

What I know about patents is that they are a means to prevent
somebody else from making a product with the patented features and
selling it (to the market/country) where the patent is valid.

That is where the money is made and where the patent gives

protection.

Patented are mostly features. Taking the Sergent coupler: The shape
of the coupler head cannot be protected by a patent because other
products have that shape already (Glatzl) (old technology), the

small

ball locking the knuckle has probably a corresponding patent. The
moveable knuckle cannot because that has been used in other

products

before. The shape of the knuckle locking arm can possibly be

patented.

So any standard that is simply based on the Sergent coupler head's
shape (mating surfaces) will not infringe a patent per se and any
product to that standard will neither. Make a Kadee-clone coupler
with that head shape and you are fine.

Manfred

--- In STMFC@..., "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@> wrote:

I would be interested in knowing if having a patent would prevent

anyone (NMRA or Joe Schmo..) from putting a coupler into an optical
comparator and making

full engineering measurements of it. I don't think so. I think

it is clear that if the object being measured has some patented
features, a manufacturer could not take those

photos, drawings and measurements and market a product.... but

merely measuring and publshing photos, and detailed dimensions

would

not be covered by law.

It sure would make interfacing with the "defacto" standards

easier.

Charlie Vlk

Fellow list members,
Considering the vast majority of posts, including the one from Bruce
adminishing Di, don't use any salutation at all, Bruce's comments
rather smack of the pot calling the kettle black.

We've even getting off the point of that issue (which is off the point
of the original one). Bruce (rightly or wrongly)felt slighted so had to
find a way to have a slap back. Sadly just the silly side of human
nature. Hankies at 10 paces.

Geting back on track, Bruce has anyone emailed you a copy of the review
you asked for? If not can you give me the issue and article and I'll
see if I can find it.
cheers
Dave North

Kurt Laughlin wrote:

"Hey A--holes:"

Suit yourself, Kurt <g>.

Given the well-known preponderance of men in all modeling hobbies, my stated observations, and the absence of information to the contrary, the assumption that past STMFC posts accurately characterize the current gender make-up of this Yahoo group is perfectly reasonable.

Like I said, Kurt, it's a statistical argument. Since you seem unable or unwilling to grasp what that means, let's drop it.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Smith

On May 27, 2008, at 1:07 AM, Didrik A. Voss wrote:

Gentlemen,

There are women present in the hobby, and it certainly does nothing
to improve their sense belonging if folks representing the NMRA
continue to ignore or insult them...
----- Original Message -----

Umm, I believe he was addressing this Yahoo group in general and the
authors
of various posts in particular, not the NMRA membership as a whole. I've
only been on here about a year and a half but I'm pretty sure I've never
seen a post signed by a clearly feminine name or a mention that an post
author was a woman. Thus, addressing the group as "Gentlemen" is probably
correct - at least with regard to gender.

Um, it's not only women who take offense when people make unsubstantiated
assumptions about gender. The NMRA lost me as a member, probably forever,
when it advertised the spouse program for an NMRA National as the
"Railettes" program, in the 1990s! I wrote the President to complain -
never received even an acknowledgement.

There are some number of talented women already in this hobby, some of whom
are or might become steam era prototype modelers. If they don't join this
list or if they just lurk, perhaps it's because implicit assumptions
embedded in seemingly "harmless" salutations make them feel unwelcome. This
isn't about being PC, it's about whether or not you think that implicitly
excluding a demographic that makes up more than half the population is a
shrewd strategy for the survival or growth of the hobby. Look at the
demographic of the crowd in the first image on this page
http://makerfaire.com/ and then look at the crowd at the next NMRA
convention you go to. You tell me which set of builders has a more robust
future.

Dave Smith
--
David L. Smith
Da Vinci Science Center
Allentown, PA
http://www.davinci-center.org

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Kurt Laughlin wrote:

Umm, I believe he was addressing this Yahoo group in general and the authors of various posts in particular, not the NMRA membership as a whole. I've only been on here about a year and a half but I'm pretty sure I've never seen a post signed by a clearly feminine name or a mention that an post author was a woman.

You're assuming that all list members make posts. And the implicit assumption that what we know today applies into the future seems to me also problematic.

Thus, addressing the group as "Gentlemen" is probably correct - at least with regard to gender.

Those on the "short end" of these nomenclature issues usually aren't happy with a statistical argument <g>.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

On May 27, 2008, at 1:07 AM, Didrik A. Voss wrote:

Gentlemen,

There are women present in the hobby, and it certainly does nothing to improve their sense belonging if folks representing the NMRA continue to ignore or insult them...

Didrik Voss response:
The article was reviewed by two electronics engineers; one with a
Master Degree and one with a PhD. Both have over 20 years experience
working for major international electronics firms. What are your
credentials?

Other than having recently reached the pinacle of academic rank and therefor feeling obliged to pontificate on all subjects, whether I have knowledge of them or not <G>? My scientific credentials are public knowledge. My area of expertise is molecular medicine. However, before you go "Ah-Ha!" I have a working knowledge of electronics associated with electrophysiology and am frequently called upon to review grant proposals and papers that have electrical components to the work. I am not a DCC expert, nor do I pretend to be one, although I think I probably have a better than average ability to understand what goes on inside those "black boxes". When necessary, I consult my "better-half" who is a solid-state physicist, currently specializing in silicon carbide device synthesis.

However, my concerns with your article did not lie specifically with the electronics, and thus I am not surprised that the technical details were deemed "correct" by the experts. Rather, I was concerned that the basic hypothesis was flawed, a situation that does not require an electrical engineer to identify. I have donated that issue of Scale Rails to my daughter Brianna's school (she, BTW, is a model railroader with a "lifetime pass" to our listmeister's layout and decidedly not covered by your salutation) so if you would like more specific comments, please send me an electronic copy and I will be happy to re-read it, provide you with the reasoning that led to my concerns and discuss this with you further.

Didrik Voss response:
If you re-read the article, you will realize the one locomotive
failed due to a dummy plug with a capacitor that causes the DCC
command station to shut down. The other locomotive had a dummy plug
without the capacitor included. Both locomotives passed the other
three Standards (S-2, S-4, S-7).

Do you have any idea whether the difference in the dummy plugs is systematic or coincidental? There are a number of possible explanations on why two models from the same company might have different dummy plugs - which is correct in this instance? With an N of 1 for each locomotive model, I submit that you cannot tell me what the chance is of having a "failing plug" in the next model off the shelf, because, you did not look... As such, this is a text-book example of an unsupported conclusion based on insufficient sample size.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0

Manfred,
There are 2 kinds of patents issued in the US: utility or use patents, and design patents. The first type is what most people think of as patents, where specific claims are made to protect specific improvements to prior designs. The second type protects a particular form or shape from being copied, such as the shape of a Coca-Cola bottle. The first is difficult and expensive to get, the second is cheap & easy.
As to protection, the government very rarely prevents someone else from making an infringing product, but they do give legal recourse to claim damages and prevent further sales after suit is brought by the person with the patent.
As for your examples below, in my experience, it would depend as much on the skill of the lawyers and the financial resources on each side as anything else to determine the outcome.
Unless there is someone out there with expertise in intellectual property law, the question of whether it is legal to publish the exact dimensions of an existing product remains unanswered, even if it is clearly not a violation of patent law.

Larry Grubb
Manfred Lorenz <germanfred55@...> wrote:
What I know about patents is that they are a means to prevent
somebody else from making a product with the patented features and
selling it (to the market/country) where the patent is valid.

That is where the money is made and where the patent gives protection.

Patented are mostly features. Taking the Sergent coupler: The shape
of the coupler head cannot be protected by a patent because other
products have that shape already (Glatzl) (old technology), the small
ball locking the knuckle has probably a corresponding patent. The
moveable knuckle cannot because that has been used in other products
before. The shape of the knuckle locking arm can possibly be patented.

So any standard that is simply based on the Sergent coupler head's
shape (mating surfaces) will not infringe a patent per se and any
product to that standard will neither. Make a Kadee-clone coupler
with that head shape and you are fine.

Manfred

--- In STMFC@..., "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@...> wrote:

I would be interested in knowing if having a patent would prevent

anyone (NMRA or Joe Schmo..) from putting a coupler into an optical
comparator and making

full engineering measurements of it. I don't think so. I think

it is clear that if the object being measured has some patented
features, a manufacturer could not take those

photos, drawings and measurements and market a product.... but

merely measuring and publshing photos, and detailed dimensions would
not be covered by law.

It sure would make interfacing with the "defacto" standards easier.
Charlie Vlk

What I know about patents is that they are a means to prevent
somebody else from making a product with the patented features and
selling it (to the market/country) where the patent is valid.

That is where the money is made and where the patent gives protection.

Patented are mostly features. Taking the Sergent coupler: The shape
of the coupler head cannot be protected by a patent because other
products have that shape already (Glatzl) (old technology), the small
ball locking the knuckle has probably a corresponding patent. The
moveable knuckle cannot because that has been used in other products
before. The shape of the knuckle locking arm can possibly be patented.

So any standard that is simply based on the Sergent coupler head's
shape (mating surfaces) will not infringe a patent per se and any
product to that standard will neither. Make a Kadee-clone coupler
with that head shape and you are fine.

Manfred

--- In STMFC@..., "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@...> wrote:

I would be interested in knowing if having a patent would prevent

anyone (NMRA or Joe Schmo..) from putting a coupler into an optical
comparator and making

full engineering measurements of it. I don't think so. I think

it is clear that if the object being measured has some patented
features, a manufacturer could not take those

photos, drawings and measurements and market a product.... but

merely measuring and publshing photos, and detailed dimensions would
not be covered by law.

It sure would make interfacing with the "defacto" standards easier.
Charlie Vlk

Mike-
I do believe that Paul Mallory was working with the NMRA at the time the X2f was developed. You are correct in stating that the X2f was never adopted as a NMRA standard...
but that may be more due to the cumbersome voting requirements that also prevented the RPs from becoming standards more than a desire to make the X2f official. Not that any of this makes any difference to today.....
I would be interested in knowing if having a patent would prevent anyone (NMRA or Joe Schmo..) from putting a coupler into an optical comparator and making
full engineering measurements of it. I don't think so. I think it is clear that if the object being measured has some patented features, a manufacturer could not take those
photos, drawings and measurements and market a product.... but merely measuring and publshing photos, and detailed dimensions would not be covered by law.
It sure would make interfacing with the "defacto" standards easier.
Charlie Vlk