Podcasts about Rolf

I detta avsnitt samtalar vi om Svenska Kyrkans skogar ur ett klimatperspektiv och vilken klimatnytta Sveriges skogar och dess produkter ger oss. Skogforsk och Rolf Björheden har på uppdrag granskat de 13 stiftens skogsinnehav vad gäller skogsbruk och skötsel och under senare år med särskild fokus på klimataspekterna. Skogen och dess produkter gör att Sverige binder och tränger undan mer koldioxid än våra fossila koldioxidutsläpp.   Åke Carlsson och Harald Säll samtalar den 19 maj 2026 med Rolf Björheden om rapporterna han skrivit om svenska kyrkans skogar och dess klimatnytta. Rolf är skogligt utbildad och är professor i skogsteknik. Han har tidigare skrivit rapporten ”Det svenska skogsbrukets klimatpåverkan – Upptag och utsläpp av växthusgasen koldioxid. Den är väl värd att läsa.  

This week on Fright Flick FMK, I'm watching, reacting to, and rating the cult film Bad Boy Bubby. Bubby has spent thirty years trapped in the same small room, tricked and controlled by his mother. But when he finally escapes, he enters a modern world he doesn't understand — deranged, naive, confused, and completely unprepared for the chaos waiting outside. Written and directed by Rolf de Heer, and starring Nicholas Hope, Claire Benito, and Ralph Cotterill, this is the kind of movie that promises cult cinema madness, uncomfortable laughs, dark moments, and a whole lot of “what did I just watch?” I'll be sipping my whiskey

Dr. Carl, Rolf, Tron and Best Friend Dog run out of suspects and retrace their steps. https://freeleaguepublishing.com/games/vaesen/ https://www.patreon.com/bastardquest https://bastardquest.com/ https://linktr.ee/bastardquestpodcast https://www.norsefoundry.com/

Click to Subscribe: https://bit.ly/Youtube-Subscribe-SoapDirt Days of Our Lives spoilers for June 8-12, 2026 see Gwen Rizczech (Emily O'Brien) is set to pull a shocking move to get revenge, while Sarah Horton (Linsey Godfrey) experiences a steamy fantasy that leaves her stunned. EJ DiMera (Dan Feuerriegel) receives some unsettling news from Dr. Wilhelm Rolf (Richard Wharton), raising concerns for his sister Lexi Carver's (Renee Jones) health. Meanwhile, Sarah's conflicting feelings towards her ex, Xander Cook (Paul Telfer), are brought to light in a startling dream. DOOL spoilers indicate that Rafe Hernandez (Galen Gering) and Arianna "Ari" Grace Horton (Vico Escorcia) grill Gabi Hernandez (Cherie Jimenez) over her tumultuous split with Phillip Kiriakis (John-Paul Lavoisier). Roman Brady (Josh Taylor) and Kate Roberts (Lauren Koslow) rekindle their relationship, despite the looming secret about Kate's dealings with Johnny DiMera (Carson Boatman).  Spoilers for Days of our Lives reveal Brady Black (Eric Martsolf), Marlena Evans (Deidre Hall), and Belle Black (Martha Madison) remember John Black (Drake Hogestyn) on the anniversary of his death. As the week comes to a close, Abe Carver (James Reynolds) seeks support from his loved ones regarding his complicated situation with Paulina Price (Jackee Harry) and Lexi. More DOOL spoilers suggest tensions rise as EJ demands that Dr. Rolf find a cure for Lexi. Belle and Brady's curiosity about Stefano DiMera's (Joseph Mascolo) last game takes them to EJ. The drama continues to build as Gabby tries to reconcile with Phillip, and Stephanie Johnson's (Abigail Klein) return from China brings unexpected turmoil. This episode was hosted by Belynda Gates-Turner for Soap Dirt. Visit our Days of our Lives section of Soap Dirt: https://soapdirt.com/category/days-of-our-lives/ Listen to our Podcasts: https://soapdirt.podbean.com/ And Check out our always up-to-date Days of our Lives Spoilers page at: https://soapdirt.com/days-of-our-lives-spoilers/ Check Out our Social Media... Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoapDirtTV Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SoapDirt Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/soapdirt/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@soapdirt Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/soapdirt/

Click to Subscribe: https://bit.ly/Youtube-Subscribe-SoapDirt Days of our Lives predictions indicate that EJ DiMera (Dan Feuerriegel) demands that Dr. Wilhelm Rolf (Richard Wharton) save his sister Lexie Carver's (Nicky Crawford) life, again, when a potentially fatal experiment goes awry.  DOOL predictions hint that Sarah Horton (Linsey Godfrey) is torn between her feelings for Xander Cook (Paul Telfer) and another love interest, despite Xander's unwavering support in her most difficult times.  Days of our Lives spoilers show that Chanel Dupree (Raven Bowens) refuses cancer treatment to protect her unborn baby, leaving Johnny DiMera (Carson Boatman) distraught. In another storyline, Brady Black (Eric Martsolf) and Belle Black (Martha Madison) confront EJ about a missing pawn from a chess set, hinting at an unresolved mystery.  DOOL spoilers reveal that Lexie demands answers from EJ about her deteriorating health. Whether it's the suspense surrounding Lexie's health or the emotional turmoil of Sarah and Chanel. You are listening to Belynda from Soap Dirt. The most listened to podcast for soap operas. Visit our Days of our Lives section of Soap Dirt: https://soapdirt.com/category/days-of-our-lives/ Listen to our Podcasts: https://soapdirt.podbean.com/ And Check out our always up-to-date Days of our Lives Spoilers page at: https://soapdirt.com/days-of-our-lives-spoilers/ Check Out our Social Media... Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoapDirtTV Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SoapDirt Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/soapdirt/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@soapdirt Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/soapdirt/

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

Der alte Mann am Fenster sieht alles. Alles, was in der kleinen Straße passiert. Aber als seine Frau noch lebte, war das anders. Da hatte sie die Hosen an. Klar, dass ihr Tod ihn jubeln ließ und die Straße hatte von nun an Raum für wilde Spekulationen.

Unsinn und Sinn - ein weites Feld. Weil es so viele Redewendungen dazu gibt, erklärt der BR Heimat-Experte für Sprichwörtliches, Rolf-Bernhard Essig, im Gespräch mit Bettina Ahne im zweiten Wissenswertes rund um Albernheiten.

Rolf Hoenger, Head de Roche Pharma Latam by Diario La república

Click to Subscribe: https://bit.ly/Youtube-Subscribe-SoapDirt Days of our Lives spoilers give a riveting turn of events as Dr. Lexi Carver (Renée Jones) makes an unexpected return from the dead. However, there's speculation that her miraculous resurrection, courtesy of Dr. Wilhelm Rolf's (Richard Wharton) experimental cure, may not last. Despite the joyous reunion with her son Theo Carver (Tyler Joseph Andrews) and husband Abe Carver (James Reynolds), Lexi's return might not yield the happy ending viewers are hoping for. DOOL rumors stem from the fact that Crawford was contracted for a six-month stint, and her scenes were filmed from April to September 2025. Given that "Days of our Lives" films nine to ten months ahead of air dates, this suggests that Lexi's character may have limited time on the show. The uncertainty around Lexi's fate raises questions about the efficacy of Dr. Rolf's serum and the miracle drug Versix. Days of our Lives spoilers recall that previous patients like Will Horton (Chandler Massey), who was brought back after dying at the hands of the Necktie Killer Ben Weston (Robert Scott Wilson), and Jack Deveraux (Matthew Ashford) have experienced post-resurrection amnesia. Stefan DiMera (Brandon Barash) even thought he was Jake for a while after being resurrected. Megan Hathaway (Miranda Wilson), however, returned without major complications, though she was quite unhinged beforehand. More DOOL speculation about Lexi's fate ranges from her getting recast, dying, or living happily ever after with her family. There's the possibility that Lexi and Abe decide to travel the world, much like Bo Brady (Peter Reckell) and Hope Brady (Kristian Alfonso) did after Bo's resurrection. However, a potential recurrence of Lexi's brain tumor could shatter her family's newfound happiness, leading to another heartbreaking loss, especially for Abe and Theo.  The Soap Dirt podcast has made the Top 100 List for Apple Podcasts in the Entertainment News Category. Visit our Days of our Lives section of Soap Dirt: https://soapdirt.com/category/days-of-our-lives/ Listen to our Podcasts: https://soapdirt.podbean.com/ And Check out our always up-to-date Days of our Lives Spoilers page at: https://soapdirt.com/days-of-our-lives-spoilers/ Check Out our Social Media... Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoapDirtTV Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SoapDirt Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/soapdirt/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@soapdirt Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/soapdirt/

Click to Subscribe: https://bit.ly/Youtube-Subscribe-SoapDirt Days of Our Lives spoilers stun as EJ DiMera (Dan Feuerriegel) and Dr. Wilhelm Rolf (Richard Wharton) shock everyone with the miraculous resurrection of Lexi Carver (Renee Jones). The unexpected appearance of Lexi, who was presumed dead for 15 years, leaves her family and friends in disbelief.  DOOL spoilers indicate that EJ and Rolf's controversial medical procedure may land them in Statesville Prison as they potentially face criminal charges. Paulina Price (Jackee Harry) could push for these charges, adding another layer of tension to the dramatic storyline. Lexi's brother Theo Carver (Tyler Joseph Andrews) and father Abe Carver (James Reynolds) are overwhelmed to see her alive, though her sudden collapse and subsequent hospital stay stirs up more trouble.  Spoilers for Days of our Lives suggest that Paulina, feeling sidelined, might seek revenge on EJ for disrupting her marriage and blackmailing her. DA Belle Black (Martha Madison) might be persuaded to charge EJ for the chaos he's caused. The legal team of EJ asserts they can manage the situation, but the potential charges of desecrating a corpse, unlicensed human experimentation, and theft of public utilities may prove to be challenging.  Soap Dirt has grown to the most subscribed to YouTube soap opera channel. Visit our Days of our Lives section of Soap Dirt: https://soapdirt.com/category/days-of-our-lives/ Listen to our Podcasts: https://soapdirt.podbean.com/ And Check out our always up-to-date Days of our Lives Spoilers page at: https://soapdirt.com/days-of-our-lives-spoilers/ Check Out our Social Media... Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoapDirtTV Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SoapDirt Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/soapdirt/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@soapdirt Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/soapdirt/

Work with me

Claudia und Rolf haben ihren psychologischen Werkzeugkasten live auf der Bühne im Münchner Schlachthof ausgepackt. Die Stimmung im Saal kocht und passenderweise geht es heute genau darum: das berühmt-berüchtigte "Vulkangefühl". Claudia riskiert alles, denn während sie hemmungslos aus dem familiären Nähkästchen plaudert, sitzt ihre Familie inklusive Ehemann im Publikum und muss tapfer zuhören!Kennt ihr das? Eine schimmelnde Teenager-Brotdose mit eigenem Ökosystem trifft auf die scheinbar harmlose Frage des Partners, ob seine Jeans noch mitgewaschen wird und bäm, wir explodieren. Warum rasten wir am ehesten bei den Menschen aus, die wir am meisten lieben? Wie reagiert man souverän, wenn der Ehemann das liebevoll geschnippelte Gemüse für das Abendessen aus lauter Hilfsbereitschaft auf den Kompost wirft? Hört in dieser Live-Folge, gespickt mit Lachern aus dem Publikum, warum unser Gehirn in Stressmomenten in den Steinzeit-Modus schaltet und wie ihr eure auf Krawall gebürstete "Amygdala" austrickst, bevor ihr Dinge sagt, die ihr später bereut.Ein riesiges Dankeschön an das großartige Publikum in München für diesen unvergesslichen Abend! Wenn ihr nicht dabei sein konntet, holt euch die Live-Atmosphäre jetzt direkt auf die Ohren. Gibt es Themen, bei denen euer innerer Vulkan ausbricht? Lasst es uns wissen und schreibt uns an: podcast@psychohacks.de. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Rolf family, including Aunt Elizabeth, rent a large country mansion for the summer, and care for an 85-year-old lady in the attic. What could go wrong?To download, right-click here and then click SaveJoin the Journey Into Patreon to get early Outfield Excursions episodes.Episode Art courtesy of Gino Moretto.To comment on this or any episode:Send comments and/or recordings to journeyintopodcat@gmail.comPost a comment on Facebook or on X

Rolf Jacobson is back — psalm scholar, dean at Luther Seminary, co-author of the Homebrewed Christianity Guide to the Old Testament, and one of my favorite people to argue theology with over a long dinner. His new book God Meets Us in Our Suffering is unlike anything else he's written, and unlike almost anything else I've read on the subject. It's the story of three close friends — Rolf, his brother Carl, and their friend Mike Pancoast — who all had cancer, went through it together, and wrote about it side by side by side. Rolf had bone cancer at fifteen, lost both legs, and has been in a wheelchair for forty-five years. Carl was diagnosed with leukemia in 2022, declared cancer free in 2024, then died months later when meningitis attacked his brain after the bone marrow transplant compromised his immune system. Mike had lymphoma. What the three of them discovered in writing the book — and what Rolf and I spent this conversation unpacking — is that they didn't know they were writing a book about the theology of the cross. They thought they were just telling their stories. They weren't. This is one of the most honest, funny, theologically rich conversations I've had on this podcast, and it's also one of the most personal. Rolf doesn't let suffering become an abstraction. It never was one for him. You can WATCH the conversation on YouTube Join our upcoming online class – THE FUTURE OF RELIGION Tripp and Ilia Delio are teaming up for a brand-new four-week online class, The Future of Religion — for everyone who's read the books, asked the questions, and realized the faith they inherited doesn't quite fit anymore. Together they'll trace religion's evolutionary arc and map what's emerging on the other side. Includes 4 video lectures, 4 live Q&As (replays available), and a community of fellow travelers. Donation-based, pay what you're able (including $0). Live sessions start this month — register at www.thefutureofreligion.com ⁠Theology Beer Camp 2026 — The God-Podcalypse — hits Kansas City October 8–10, exactly one month before the election⁠⁠. Thirty scholars (Ilia Delio, Cornel West, Diana Butler Bass, Gary Dorrien, and a stack more), thirty God-pods, four post-apocalyptic stages, and the community everyone keeps telling us is the real reason they come back. Come find your people at ⁠⁠⁠Theology Beer Camp ⁠⁠ This podcast is a ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Homebrewed Christianity ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠production. Follow ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠the Homebrewed Christianity⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Theology Nerd Throwdown⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, & ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Rise of Bonhoeffer⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ podcasts for more theological goodness for your earbuds. Join over 75,000 other people by joining our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Substack - Process This!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Get instant access to over 50 classes at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.TheologyClass.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow the podcast, drop a review⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, send ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠feedback/questions⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or become a ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠member of the HBC Community⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Click to Subscribe: https://bit.ly/Youtube-Subscribe-SoapDirt Days of our Lives spoilers show that Kristen DiMera (Stacy Haiduk) is concocting a new murder plot. And, Lexie Carver (Renee Jones) awakening, leaving everyone in Salem in shock. EJ DiMera (Dan Feuerriegel) is seen questioning Cat Greene (AnnaLynne McCord) while Dr. Wilhelm Rolf (Richard Wharton) is startled to find Lexie missing from her bed.  DOOL spoilers reveal that, Chad DiMera (Connor Floyd) has to defend Leo Stark (Greg Rikaart) from potential familial backlash. In a surprise twist, Lexie crashes the toast after the reading of Stefano DiMera's Will, causing quite a stir.  Days of our Lives spoilers indicate that Tony DiMera (Thaao Penghlis) asks Gabi Hernandez (Cherie Jimenez) if she wants to be CEO of DiMera Enterprises. Now, Gabi might finally get Stefan DiMera's (Brandon Barash) piece of the pie. It's a tense week as Kristen interrogates Rolf about keeping Lexi's secret with EJ, while Holly Jonas (Ashley Puzemis) lashes out at Tate Black (Leo Howard) about Sophia Choi's (Rachel Boyd) accusations.  DOOL spoilers hint that Gwen Rizczech (Emily O'Brien) gets irritated when EJ gets one over on her, potentially jeopardizing her investment in a deal. As Lexie recuperates in the hospital, Marlena Evans (Deidre Hall) offers comfort to a stunned Paulina Price (Jackee Harry). The week concludes with Kristen asking Xander Cook (Paul Telfer) to commit a murder. This episode was hosted by Belynda Gates-Turner for Soap Dirt. Visit our Young and the Restless section of Soap Dirt: https://soapdirt.com/category/young-and-the-restless/ Listen to our Podcasts: https://soapdirt.podbean.com/ And Check out our always up-to-date Young and the Restless Spoilers page at: https://soapdirt.com/young-and-the-restless-spoilers/ Check Out our Social Media... Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoapDirtTV Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SoapDirt Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/soapdirt/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@soapdirt Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/soapdirt/

Bright on Buddhism - Episode 138 - What are the 3 mysteries in Shingon Buddhism? What are their significance? How ought we understand it?Resources: Arai, Yusei (1997). Koyasan Shingon Buddhism: A Handbook for Followers, Japan: Koyasan Shingon Mission, ISBN 4-9900581-1-9.Bowring, Richard (2008). The Religious Traditions of Japan: 500–1600. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.BDK (2015), Esoteric Texts, Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai America Incorporated.Chandra, Lokesh (2003). The Esoteric Iconography of Japanese Mandalas, International Academy of Indian Culture and Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, ISBN 81-86471-93-6Dreitlein, Eijo (2011). Shido Kegyo Shidai, Japan.Dreitlein, Eijo (2011). Beginner's Handbook for the Shido Kegyo of Chuin-ryu, Japan.Giebel, Rolf W.; Todaro, Dale A.; transl. (2004). Shingon Texts, Berkeley, Calif.: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research. ISBN 1886439249Giebel, Rolf, transl. (2006), The Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi Sutra, Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, Berkeley, ISBN 978-1-886439-32-0Giebel, Rolf, transl. (2006). Two Esoteric Sutras: The Adamantine Pinnacle Sutra (T 18, no 865), The Susiddhikara Sutra (T 18, no 893), Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research. ISBN 1-886439-15-XHakeda, Yoshito S., transl. (1972). Kukai: Major Works, Translated, With an Account of His Life and a Study of His Thought, New York: Columbia University Press, ISBN 0-231-03627-2.Matsunaga, Daigan; and Matsunaga, Alicia (1974). Foundation of Japanese Buddhism, Vol. I: The Aristocratic Age. Buddhist Books International, Los Angeles und Tokio. ISBN 0-914910-25-6.Kiyota, Minoru (1978). Shingon Buddhism: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles/Tokyo: Buddhist Books International.Payne, Richard K. (2004). "Ritual Syntax and Cognitive Theory", Pacific World Journal, Third Series, No 6, 105–227.Toki, Hôryû; Kawamura, Seiichi, tr, (1899). "Si-do-in-dzou; gestes de l'officiant dans les cérémonies mystiques des sectes Tendaï et Singon", Paris, E. Leroux.Miyata, Taisen (1998). A Study of the Ritual Mudras in the Shingon Tradition and Their Symbolism.Maeda, Shuwa (2019). The Ritual Books of Four Preliminary Practices: Sambo-in Lineage Kenjin School, Japan.Orzech, Charles D; Sorensen, Henrik Hjort; Payne, Richard Karl (2011). Esoteric Buddhism and the tantras in East Asia. Leiden; Boston: Brill. doi:10.1163/ej.9789004184916.i-1200. ISBN 978-90-04-20401-0. OCLC 731667667._________________________________If you like our show and would like to support us, we encourage you to give your money or resources to a worthy cause. We can get through this. Our strongest weapon is solidarity. Stay strong and help where you can. Thank you.Do you have a question about Buddhism that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by emailing us at Bright.On.Buddhism@gmail.com.Credits:Nick Bright: Script, Cover Art, Music, Voice of Hearer, Co-HostProven Paradox: Editing, mixing and mastering, social media, Voice of Hermit, Co-Host

Wenn Eltern plötzlich in jedem Detail unseres Lebens die Rolle der perfekten Retter einnehmen, kann das für uns Erwachsene schnell anstrengend werden. Besonders dann, wenn sie in unserer eigenen Kindheit vielleicht ganz anders – nämlich distanzierter – waren. Unsere Hörerin Stefanie kennt das nur zu gut: Ihre Mutter drängt sich ständig in die Retterrolle, und Stefanie hat das Gefühl, ihre Mutter wolle sich damit im Nachhinein beweisen. In dieser Folge beleuchten Rolf und Claudia die psychologischen Motive hinter diesem „Retter-Verhalten“. Warum versuchen Eltern oft, verpasste Chancen oder ein schlechtes Gewissen aus der Vergangenheit durch übermäßige Hilfsbereitschaft im Hier und Jetzt auszugleichen?Ihr habt eine Frage, ein Thema oder braucht euren persönlichen Psychohack? Dann schreibt uns an: podcast@psychohacks.de. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on The Business of Watches, we're in Hölstein, Switzerland, near Basel, at the peach-rose colored headquarters of Oris to talk to Rolf Studer, the brand's Chief Executive Officer. One of the 50 largest Swiss brands by sales, Oris is a true independent, making mechanical watches at fair prices, conveying the brand's unique spirit.  Its history dates back to 1904, with boom times in the 1960s that were kick-started by the tireless legal and lobbying work of Dr. Rolf Portmann, an Oris executive (and honorary chairman today), whose efforts led to overturning the Swiss Watch Statute in 1966 that had prevented Oris and many other brands from using Swiss lever escapements in their watch movements. Some 60 years later, Oris is marking that milestone with its Star Edition, an updated version of the Star, the first Oris watch to use a Swiss lever escapement after the law was changed. Portmann and Ulrich Herzog (now the Chairman) went on to lead a management buyout of Oris in 1982, which solidified the company's position as an independent brand. Studer, who has been co-CEO since 2016 and was appointed CEO last month, discusses Oris' positioning and strategy in the current market, where the strong Swiss franc is challenging it and fellow watchmakers. Oris has responded with models that not only offer value to customers but also draw on its storied history and the unique community culture it has fostered. Studer makes the case for why crafted mechanical objects like a Swiss-made watch can deliver the satisfaction and joy that come only from a considered, well-made product, and for how Oris remains committed to making watches and operating in ways that continually express its considered, deeply held values. But first, Hodinkee editor TanTan Wang pops in to talk about Oris and give a brief debrief from Watches and Wonders, noting some of the highlights from the industry's biggest and most important gathering, including offerings from Chopard and Cartier.  Show Notes  1:45 Photo Report The Sights, Watches, And Style Of Watches & Wonders 2026  2:14 Business News: Watches And Wonders Attendance Climbs Despite Geo-Politics And Economic Challenges As Brands Make Case For Value  2:30 Cartier Celebrates 10 Editions of Privé With Six New Editions  3:42 Introducing: The Vacheron Constantin Overseas Dual Time Cardinal Points  3:49 Hands-On: The Chopard L.U.C 1860 In Aeruse Blue  4:43 Introducing: Parmigiani Fleurier Tonda PF Chronograph Mystérieux 'Mineral Blue' Reinvents The Central-Counter Chronograph  7:50 Introducing: Oris Star Edition Celebrates A Turning Point In The Brand's History  11:38 Introducing: The Oris Artelier Complication, A Dress Watch Redesigned For A New Generation  16:04 In-Depth: A Visit to Hölstein, The City That Oris Built   19:31 Waldenburg, Switzerland (Wikipedia)  22:19 The Swiss Watch Statute And Dr. Ralph Portmann (Oris)  34:18 Oris and independence with the Bullseye Big Crown Pointer Date(Instagram)   37:11 Prices, Volumes, And Passion: The Business Of Watches In 2025 And What To Expect In 2026  37:40 Oris Calibre 400  39:08 Swiss franc x USD   40:15 The Swiss - Artisans of Time (Swiss Confederation)  42:42 ASUAG (Wikipedia)  43:04 Oris History including ownership changes (Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry)  55:49 The Oris Yangtze Jiangtun Limited Edition

Click to Subscribe: https://bit.ly/Youtube-Subscribe-SoapDirt Days of our Lives spoilers indicate Lexi Carver (Renee Jones), long awaited by fans for her comeback, might finally wake up for real. The much-anticipated event is expected to coincide with the DiMera family gathering to hear Stefano DiMera's will. EJ DiMera (Dan Feuerriegel), who has been banking on Doctor Wilhelm Rolf's (Richard Wharton) scientific wizardry to bring his sister back to life, is hoping for a miraculous recovery for Lexi. Gwen Rizczech (Emily O'Brien), EJ, and Rolf have been secretly investing in medical technology to rejuvenate Lexi. DOOL spoilers reveal Lexi's brother, Theo Carver (Tyler Joseph Andrews), has been frequenting her bedside, eagerly waiting for her to wake up. The recent signs of life from Lexi are promising, despite Doctor Rolf's uncertainties. Theo, however, has yet to share the news with their father, Abe Carver (James Reynolds), for fear of raising false hopes. Spoilers for Days of our Lives indicate the reading of Stefano's will, organized by EJ's assistant, Cat Greene (AnnaLynne McCord), is set to take place, with Theo as the executor. The event is expected to have notable presence from the DeMera family, including Anna and Tony DiMera, Chad DiMera (Connor Floyd), and Kristen DiMera (Stacy Haiduk). A surprise appearance from Lexi at the reading would be the most dramatic and soapiest outcome, which would stun the entire family, along with Abe, Theo, and fans. This episode was hosted by Belynda Gates-Turner for the #1 Soap Opera Channel, Soap Dirt. Visit our Days of our Lives section of Soap Dirt: https://soapdirt.com/category/days-of-our-lives/ Listen to our Podcasts: https://soapdirt.podbean.com/ And Check out our always up-to-date Days of our Lives Spoilers page at: https://soapdirt.com/days-of-our-lives-spoilers/ Check Out our Social Media... Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoapDirtTV Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SoapDirt Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/soapdirt/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@soapdirt Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/soapdirt/

Teams mit starkem Wir-Gefühl arbeiten erfolgreicher. Gute Führung fördert Teamarbeit, sagt der Organisationswissenschaftler Rolf van Dick. Moderation: Tobi Schäfer Von WDR 5.

Skogsaffärerna ökade med 19 procent under 2025 – men vad ligger bakom uppgången? Är det räntan, virkespriserna eller ett förändrat investeringsklimat? I veckans Skogen och kapitalet gästar Rolf Åttingsberg från Handelsbanken som guidar oss genom den senaste skogsrapporten. Vi pratar prisutveckling, regionala skillnader och vad köpare faktiskt tittar på idag. I nyhetssvepet från ATL: dieselpriser som svänger, pressade resultat i skogsindustrin och vad det betyder för marknaden framåt.

Entrevista completa==> https://youtu.be/g4XM3WouXsoOlá sejam bem vindo ao nosso quadro de entrevistas do Podcast da Mineração.Neste programa especial, entrevistamos Rolf Pickert, Ceo Messe Muenchen do Brasil conversamos sobre A ARENA M&T é um evento itinerante que acontece nos anos em que não ocorre a M&T Expo – part of bauma NETWORK. Com sua expansão e consolidação no mercado, a iniciativa evoluiu e se tornou um evento próprio, configurando um novo palco ao ar livre para demonstração, em operação real, de máquinas e equipamentos e muito mais.Em 2026, acontece em Fazenda Rio Grande, de 21 a 23 de outubro, reunindo marcas líderes e suas soluções para construção, mineração e outros setores.Criação de Arte: Maryana BarbosaUse o link abaixo e garanta seu desconto na plataforma SX Requerimento MineralLink: https://requerimentomineral.com.br/planos?cupom=PODCAST15Este evento é realizado pela Messe MuenchenSite do Evento: https://arenamt.com.br/O Podcast da Mineração estará presente nesse grandioso evento. Pois somos parceiros de mídia. Patrocinadores Oficiais do Podcast da Mineração:ÍGNEA Geologia & Meio Ambiente - https://www.igneabr.com.br/ - @igneabrVP Transporte Logistica - http://www.vptransportes.com.br/ - @vptransportesltdSX Requerimento Mineral - https://requerimentomineral.com.br/ - @sx_mineralCorona Cadinhos - https://coronacadinhos.com.br/- @coronacadinhosConfiram essa e outras entrevistas no canal e Lembrem-se: "Mineração pode não ser o futuro mas não existe futuro sem a mineração"#mineração #tecnologia #technology #podcastdamineração #podcast

For this International Guide Dogs Day special of the Seeing Eye Dogs Show, Harriet is joined by Rolf Geerlings, Seeing Eye Dog handler to Marlo and Children and Young People Operations Lead at Vision Australia. Rolf shares his story of becoming a handler and the journey to gaining his independence back after challenges with vision loss. He talks about his partnerships with retired dogs Echo and Stella, and his new and current partnership with Marlo. If you'd like to find out more about Seeing Eye Dogs head to our website: https://sed.visionaustralia.org/ If you're blind or have low vision and are interested in becoming a handler or applying for a Seeing Eye Dog, please email us at info@sed.org.au or call on 1800 037 773 to discuss dog guide mobility, eligibility or assessment.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In der neuen Folge des Wandelwerker Podcasts spricht Anna mit Prof. Dr. Rolf Ellegast, Direktor des Instituts für Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung, über die Auswirkungen von Digitalisierung, KI und Arbeit 4.0 auf Sicherheit und Gesundheit bei der Arbeit. Gemeinsam schauen sie darauf, welche Chancen digitale Assistenzsysteme, vernetzte Prozesse und Robotik bieten – und wo neue Risiken entstehen, etwa durch Cyberangriffe, Black-Box-Algorithmen oder Bewegungsarmut. Rolf erklärt praxisnah, warum neue Technologien frühzeitig aus Sicht des Arbeitsschutzes geprüft und menschengerecht gestaltet werden müssen. Wie verändern KI-Systeme unsere kognitiven Fähigkeiten? Welche Rolle spielen Kommunikation und Qualifizierung bei der Einführung neuer Technologien? Und warum bleibt der Mensch auch in einer zunehmend automatisierten Arbeitswelt im Mittelpunkt?

Stellt euch vor, ihr seid seit über 20 Jahren verpartnert. Plötzlich hat einer von euch neue Flausen im Kopf: Portugiesisch lernen, Nordlichter in Island schauen oder im eigenen Hot Tub sitzen. Der andere möchte aber lieber entspannt "Bergdoktor" gucken, Schweinsbraten essen und nach einem anstrengenden Tag einfach nur seine Ruhe haben. Sehr schnell fühlt sich der Aktivere in seiner Lebendigkeit ausgebremst und nimmt die fehlende Begeisterung extrem persönlich. In dieser Folge von „Psychohacks“ klären Claudia und Rolf, warum komplett unterschiedliche Energielevel und Interessen nicht sofort das Ende der Beziehung bedeuten müssen und wie ihr euch gegenseitig wieder mehr Freiräume gebt.Ihr habt eine Frage oder ein Thema, für das ihr euren persönlichen Psychohack braucht? Dann schreibt an: podcast@psychohacks.de. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Click to Subscribe: https://bit.ly/Youtube-Subscribe-SoapDirt Days of our Lives spoilers reveal EJ DiMera (Dan Feuerriegel) and Dr. Wilhelm Rolf (Richard Wharton) are seen scheming to resurrect more DiMera family members. The big question is whether Abigail Deveraux (AnnaLynne McCord) could be the next beneficiary of Rolf's life-saving serum. The duo have expressed satisfaction with the progress of their "pod person" Lexi Carver (Renee Jones), much to the delight of Gwen Rizczech (Emily O'Brien), who sees a potential windfall from her investment in their unconventional lab.  DOOL spoilers suggest EJ and Rolf are concerned about the lack of significant brain activity and other signs of awakening consciousness in Lexi. Meanwhile, speculation is rife that EJ and Rolf might be looking to revive Chad DiMera's (Connor Floyd) late wife Abigail, whose body was never found. Clyde Weston (James Read) hinted at knowing where Abigail was, without revealing whether she was dead or alive, adding to the mystery. Spoilers for Days of our Lives recall that EJ and Gwen have ties to Abigail, and there's the fact that Abby and EJ had a passionate affair back in 2014. And with new actress Sophia Matson speculated to possibly take on the role of a resurrected Abby, the plot promises to thicken. Will EJ act out of jealousy if Chad and Kat Green (AnnaLynne McCord) get closer, and could the infamous Dr. Rolf, known for his ability to brainwash patients, be used to manipulate Abby's feelings?   You are listening to Belynda from Soap Dirt. The most listened to podcast for soap operas. Visit our Days of our Lives section of Soap Dirt: https://soapdirt.com/category/days-of-our-lives/ Listen to our Podcasts: https://soapdirt.podbean.com/ And Check out our always up-to-date Days of our Lives Spoilers page at: https://soapdirt.com/days-of-our-lives-spoilers/ Check Out our Social Media... Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoapDirtTV Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SoapDirt Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/soapdirt/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@soapdirt Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/soapdirt/

Cécile Huijnen bespreekt nieuwe releases met een panel van deskundigen en liefhebbers van klassieke muziek. Nieuwe opnamen van middeleeuws tot minimal, en natuurlijk ook 'De Vergelijking', waarin een nieuwe uitvoering de strijd aangaat met twee ‘concurrenten'. Vandaag in het panel: muziekjournalist Frederike Berntsen en dirigent Rolf Verbeek.

Der April macht, was er will - und Rolf-Bernhard Essig macht, was er am besten kann: Scherz-Unsinnredensarten erklären. Zusammen mit Moderator Johannes Hitzelberger "macht er Faxen" und die beiden präsentieren mit Lust "Larifari".

Click to Subscribe: https://bit.ly/Youtube-Subscribe-SoapDirt Days of our Lives spoilers bring more drama as Kristen DiMera (Stacy Haiduk) seeks revenge on EJ DiMera (Dan Feuerriegel), with the help of Sophia Choi (Rachel Boyd). Kristen is fixated on making EJ pay for their niece, Rachel Black, ending up in Bayview. She's working on a plan to expose EJ's illicit activities and business dealings, which have involved Gwen Rizczech (Emily O'Brien) and Dr. Wilhelm Rolf (Richard Wharton). EJ, a chip off the old Stefano DiMera (Joseph Mascolo) block, has been involved in illegal scientific experiments and other shady practices.  DOOL spoilers suggest Kristen's endgame is to see EJ behind bars, and she may use Sophia to find incriminating evidence against EJ. This could involve exposing EJ's involvement with Dr. Rolf's criminal activities or resorting to more sinister schemes, such as drugging EJ and framing him for assault. Kristen's past actions, including drugging and assaulting Eric Brady (Greg Vaughan), suggest she might not be above such methods.  Spoilers for Days of our Lives indicate that apart from seeking payback for Rachel, Kristen also blames EJ for his own shooting, as he had hidden their mother, Rachel Blake (Roslyn Gentle), preventing her from testifying against him. Kristen may also use Sophia to further damage EJ's relationship with his son, Johnny DiMera (Carson Boatman), by suggesting EJ was part of a scheme to trick Johnny into staying on as CEO of DiMera Enterprises.  More DOOL spoilers suggest that Kristen and Sophia's plans could come undone if Brady Black (Eric Martsolf) and Tate Black (Leo Howard) connect Sophia to a crime scene via her fingerprints, alerting the Salem Police Department.  This episode was hosted by Belynda Gates-Turner for the #1 Soap Opera Channel, Soap Dirt. Visit our Days of our Lives section of Soap Dirt: https://soapdirt.com/category/days-of-our-lives/ Listen to our Podcasts: https://soapdirt.podbean.com/ And Check out our always up-to-date Days of our Lives Spoilers page at: https://soapdirt.com/days-of-our-lives-spoilers/ Check Out our Social Media... Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoapDirtTV Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SoapDirt Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/soapdirt/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@soapdirt Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/soapdirt/

Send us Fan MailOctober 26, 2021Characters:  Oliver--eventually became VP of a big oil company.  Jenny--my great-grandmother.  Rolf--invented the milk carton.  Esther--my mother's mother (got sick in Mexico and returned to the US).  Rueben-- invented an oil pipeline brush.Sympathetic magic--the belief that like makes like.  E.g., eating long green beans lengthens lifespan.  Eating red food stimulates blood production.Notes about President Diaz (1880-1910).Causes of goatiness in goat's milk:  three fatty acids (caproic, capric, caprylic acids)Support the showWrite to me at  twneuhaus@gmail.comTo learn more, visit  http://www.projecthopeandfairness.org

Anders Mielke har samlet et skarpt hold i denne episode af Radio Tour. For at belyse alle de danske sejre og kigge frem mod Flandern Rundt og Paris-Roubaix, har han med sig Matti Breschel, Anders Lund og Rolf Sørensen.

Das ominöse Mandelherz beschäftigt auch diesmal Gurrletta und ihre gefiederten Zeitgenossen. Ausgerechnet in der Christnacht bahnt sich etwas an zwischen unserer Taubenmadame und dem blauschnäbeligen Berti. Und dann lädt er Gurrletta ein auf die Silvesterparty seiner Sportgruppe... Amor flattert über Regensburg!

In this guest interview, John & Chris are joined legendary coach and co-founder of the 1080 Sprint, Rolf Oman. Rolf shares cutting edge insights into athletic performance, speed development and the science behind training elite athletes. Rolf also discusses how technology, biomechanics, and scientific principles can revolutionize training methods. **John, Chris and many of the show's guests are NOT licensed healthcare providers & make NO claims to be. The information provided in this show is not intended to be medical advice & should not be misconstrued as such. You assume all risk & liability by implementing any of the information shared on this show. You should ALWAYS seek the opinions of a qualified healthcare provider in your state/country before using any of the information provided in this show*Chapters00:00 Introduction to the Starting Block Podcast08:52 The Science of Speed and Power Development14:32 Dynamic Isometric Strength and Eccentric Training21:57 Understanding Ground Contact Times30:44 Measuring Eccentric and Concentric Phases36:55 Over Speed Training and Its Implications42:00 The Science of Repositioning and Injury Prevention48:54 Training Elasticity: Can It Be Improved?54:53 Periodization and Training Cycles01:01:36 Understanding Resistance Training01:08:13 The Mental Aspect of Elite Performance

Böttiger, Helmut www.deutschlandfunk.de, Büchermarkt

Embedded Systems take center stage in this week's podcast! My guest is Rolf Segger from SEGGER! Rolf and I dive deep into their extensive embedded solutions portfolio. This includes a close look at their RTOS, debuggers, IoT offerings, and their distinctive approach to licensing and support. We will also explore the fascinating concept of emApps, which represents an intriguing vision for embedded system design and is poised to shape the future of smart device development.

Kipferl, Waffeln, Baumstrietzeln - Leckereien, die eine Regensburger Stadttaube genauso liebt wie die Menschen. Besonders in der Vorweihnachtszeit, wo Gurrletta die warmherzige Atmosphäre als Inbegriff wohliger Sicherheit empfindet. Allerdings: Wird sich das lange Warten auf eine Schupfnudel nach Wochen der Entbehrung für sie lohnen?

In 1996, Swiss Prof. Rolf M. Zinkernagel, together with Australian Peter C. Doherty, received the Nobel Prize for the discovery of so-called MHC restriction — a key mechanism by which T cells recognize virus-infected cells. 30 years after this achievement Zinkernagel talks about scientific curiosity, responsibility in polarized times and the future of immunology. - 1996 erhielt der Schweizer Prof. Rolf M. Zinkernagel gemeinsam mit dem Australier Peter C. Doherty den Nobelpreis für die Entdeckung der sogenannten MHC-Restriktion – ein Schlüsselmechanismus, mit dem T-Zellen virusinfizierte Zellen erkennen. Ein Gespräch zu wissenschaftlicher Neugier, Verantwortung in polarisierten Zeiten und die Zukunft der Immunologie.

Jason and Lindsey sift through some of today's headlines which includes Governor Tim Walz's comments on the anti-fraud package moving through Minnesota's legislature, the number of ICE agents left in Minnesota as Operation Metro Surge powers down and FedEx's potential plan to reimburse customers for tariffs. For the In Depth segment, Will Rolf joins Jason to talk about a new special he's offering at Sweeney's Saloon. If a Republican and Democrat come in together they can get a Poor Man's Special on the house which features new options every day. Jason asks about Will's inspiration for the idea, Will speaks to the tonic that sharing a meal can have over political tensions between parties. Sweeney's Saloon is located on Dale Street in Cathedral Hill.

I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I welcome you to Episode 172 of our podcast IP Fridays. Today's interview guests are Co-Founder & CEO of Inception Point AI, Jeanine Whright, and Mark Stignani, who is Partner & Chair of Analytics Practice at Barnes & Thornburg LLP. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeaninepercivalwright https://www.linkedin.com/in/markstignani Inception Point AI But before the interview I have news for you: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) ruled on Feb 19, 2026, that specialized insurance can cover security for legal costs. This is vital for firms, as it eases litigation financing and lowers financial hurdles for patent lawsuits by removing the need for high liquid assets to enforce rights at the UPC. On Feb 12, 2026, the WIPO Coordination Committee nominated Daren Tang for a second six-year term as Director General. Tang continues modernizing the global IP system, focusing on SMEs, women, and digital transformation. His confirmation in April is considered certain. An AAFA study from Feb 4 reveals 41% of tested fakes (clothing/shoes) failed safety standards. Many contained toxic chemicals like phthalates, BPA, or lead. The study highlights that counterfeiters increasingly use Meta platforms to sell unsafe imitations directly to consumers. China's CNIPA 2026 report announced a crackdown on bad-faith patent and trademark filings. Beyond better examination quality, the agency will sanction shady IP firms and stop strategies violating “good faith” to make China’s IP system more ethical and innovation-friendly. Now, let's hear the interview with Jeanine Whright and Mark Stignani! How AI Is Rewiring Media & Entertainment: Key Takeaways from Ken Suzan's Conversation with Jeanine Wright and Mark Stignani In this IP Fridays interview, Ken Suzan speaks with two repeat guests who look at the same phenomenon from two angles: Jeanine Wright, Co-Founder & CEO of Inception Point AI, as a builder of AI-native entertainment, and Mark Stignani, Partner and Chair of the Analytics Practice at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, as a lawyer advising clients who are trying to use AI without stepping into a legal (or ethical) crater. What emerges is a clear picture: generative AI is not just “another tool.” It is rapidly becoming the default infrastructure for creative work—while the rules around ownership, consent, and accountability lag behind. 1) What “AI-generated personalities” really are (and why that matters) Jeanine's company is not primarily “cloning” real people. Instead, Inception Point AI creates original, fictional personalities—characters with backstories, ambitions, and evolving arcs—then deploys them into the world as podcast hosts and content creators (and eventually actors and musicians). Her key point: the creative work still starts with humans. Writers and creators define the concept, tone, audience, and story engine. What AI changes is speed, cost, and iteration—and therefore what is economically feasible to produce. 2) The “generative content pipeline” isn't a magic button A recurring misconception Ken raises is the idea that someone “pushes a button” and content pops out. Jeanine explains that real production looks more like a hybrid studio: A creative team defines character, voice, format, and storyline. A technical team builds what she calls an “AI orchestration layer” that combines multiple models and tools. The “stack” differs by format: the workflow for a long-form audio drama is different from a short-form beauty clip. This matters because it reframes AI content not as a single output, but as a pipeline decision: which tools, which data sources, which QA, and which governance steps are used—and where human review happens. 3) The biggest legal questions: origin, liability, ownership, and contracts Mark doesn't name a single “top issue.” He describes a cluster of problems that repeatedly show up in client conversations: Training data and “origin story” Clients keep asking: Can I legally use AI output if the tool was trained on copyrighted works? Even if the output looks new, the unease is about whether the tool's capabilities are built on unlicensed inputs. Liability for unintended harm Mark flags risk from AI content that inadvertently infringes, defames, or carries bias. The legal exposure may not match the creator's intent. Ownership and protectability He points to a big gap: many jurisdictions are still reluctant to grant classic IP rights (copyright or patent-style protection) to purely AI-generated material. That creates uncertainty around whether businesses can truly “own” what they produce. Old contracts weren't written for AI A final, practical point: many agreements—talent contracts, author clauses, data licenses—predate generative AI and simply don't address it. That leads to disputes about scope, permissions, and—crucially—indemnities. 4) Are we at a tipping point? The “gold rush” vs. “next creative era” views Jeanine frames AI as “the world's most powerful creative tool”—comparable to previous step-changes like animation, special effects, and CGI. For her, the strategic implication is simple: creators who learn to use AI well will expand what they can build and test, faster than ever. Mark's metaphor is more cautionary: he calls the moment a “gold rush” where technology is sprinting ahead of law. Courts are getting flooded with foundational disputes, while legislation is fragmented—he notes that states may move faster than federal frameworks, and that labor agreements (e.g., union protections) will be a key pressure point. 5) Democratization: more creators, more niche content, more experimentation One of the most concrete themes is access. Jeanine argues AI will: Lower production barriers for independent filmmakers and storytellers. Reduce the need for “hit-making only” economics that dominate Hollywood. Make micro-audience content commercially viable. Her example is intentionally niche: highly localized, specialized content (like a “pollen report” for many markets) that would never have made financial sense before can now exist—and thrive—because the production cost drops and personalization scales. 6) Likeness, consent, and “digital performers”: what happens when AI resembles a real actor? Ken pushes into a sensitive area: what if someone generates a performance that closely resembles a living actor without consent? Mark outlines the current (imperfect) toolbox—because, as he emphasizes, most laws weren't built for this scenario. He points to practical claims that may come into play in the U.S., such as rights of publicity and false endorsement-type theories, and notes that whether something is parody or “too close” can become a major fault line. Jeanine explains her company's operational approach: They focus on original personalities, designed “from scratch.” They build internal checks to avoid misappropriating known names, likenesses, or recognizable identities. If they ever work with real people, the model would be licensing their likeness/voice. A subtle but important business point also appears here: Jeanine expects AI-native characters themselves to become licensable assets—meaning the entertainment economy may expand to include “celebrity rights” for fully synthetic personalities. 7) Ethics: the real line is “deception,” not “AI vs. human” The ethical core of the conversation is not “AI is bad” or “AI is good.” It's how AI is used—especially whether audiences are misled. Mark highlights several ethical risks: Misuse of tools to manipulate faces and content (“AI slop” and political misuse). Displacement of creative workers without adequate transition support. A concern that AI often optimizes toward “statistical averages,” potentially flattening originality. Jeanine agrees ethics must be designed into the system. She describes regular discussions with an ethicist and emphasizes a principle: transparency. Her company discloses when content or personalities are AI-generated. She argues that if people understand what they're engaging with and choose it knowingly, the ethical problem shifts from “AI exists” to “Are we tricking people?” Mark adds a real-world warning: deepfakes are now credible enough to enable serious fraud—he references a case-like scenario where a synthetic video meeting deceived an employee into authorizing a payment. The point is clear: authenticity and verification are no longer optional. 8) The “dead actor” hypothetical: legal permission vs. moral intent Ken raises a provocative scenario: an actor's estate authorizes an AI-generated new performance, but the actor opposed such technology while alive. Neither guest offers a simplistic answer. Jeanine suggests that even if the estate holds legal rights, a company might choose to avoid such content out of respect and because the ethical “overhang” could damage the storytelling outcome. She also notes the harder question: people who died before today's capabilities may never have been able to meaningfully consent to what AI can now do—raising questions about how we interpret legacy intent. Mark underscores the practical contract problem: many rights are drafted “in perpetuity,” but that doesn't automatically settle the ethical question. 9) Five-year forecast: “AI everywhere,” but audiences may stratify Ken closes with a prediction question: in five years, how much entertainment content will significantly involve AI—and will audiences care? Jeanine predicts AI becomes the default creative layer for most content creation. Mark is slightly more conservative on the percentage, but adds an important nuance: the market will likely stratify. Low-cost, high-volume content may become saturated with AI, while premium segments may emphasize “human-made” as a differentiator—especially if disclosure norms become standard. Bottom line for business leaders and creators This interview lands on a pragmatic conclusion: AI will change how content is made at scale, and the competitive edge will go to teams that combine creative taste, operational discipline, and legal/ethical governance. If you're building, commissioning, or distributing content, the questions you can't dodge anymore are: What's the provenance of the tools and data you rely on? Who is responsible when output harms, infringes, or misleads? What rights can you actually claim in AI-assisted work? Do your contracts and disclosures match the new reality? Ken Suzan: Thank you, Rolf. We have two returning guests to the IP Friday’s podcast. Joining me today is Janine Wright and Mark Stignani. Our topic for discussion, how is AI transforming the media and entertainment industries today? We look at the issues from differing perspectives. A bit about our guests, Janine Wright is a seasoned board member, CEO, global COO and CFO. She’s led organizations from startup to a $475 million plus revenue subsidiary of a public company. She excels in growth strategy, adopting innovative technologies, scaling operations and financial management. Janine is a media and entertainment attorney and trial litigator turned technologist and qualified financial expert. She is the co-founder and CEO of Inception Point AI, a growing company that is paving new ground with AI-generated personalities and content through developing technology and story. Mark Stignani is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg LLP and is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is the chair of the data analytics department with a particular emphasis on artificial intelligence, machine learning, cryptocurrency and ESG. Mark combines the power of artificial intelligence and machine learning with his skills as a corporate and IP counsel to deliver unparalleled insights and strategies to his clients. Welcome, Janine and Mark to the IP Friday’s podcast. Jeanine Whright: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me and fun to be back. It feels nostalgic to be here. Ken Suzan: That’s right. And you both were on the program. So it’s fantastic that you’re both back again. So our format, I’m going to ask a question to Janine and or Mark and sometimes to both of you. So that’s going to be how we proceed. Let’s jump right in. Janine, your company creates AI-generated actors. For listeners who may not be familiar, can you briefly explain what that means and what’s now possible that wasn’t even two years ago? Jeanine Whright: Sure. Yeah, we are creating AI-generated personalities. So new characters, new personalities from scratch. We design who these personalities are and will be, how they will evolve. So we give them complex backstories. We give them hopes and dreams and aspirations. We every aspect of them, their families, how they’re going to evolve. And in the same way that, say, you know, Disney designs the character for its next animated feature or, you know, an electronic arts designs a character for its next major video game. We are doing that for these personalities and then we are launching them into the world as podcast hosts, content creators on social platforms like YouTube, Instagram and TikTok. And even in the future, you know, actors in feature length films, musicians, etc. Ken Suzan: Very fascinating. Mark, from your practice, what’s the single biggest legal question or dispute you’re seeing clients wrestle with when it comes to AI and media creation? Mark Stignani: Well, I think that, you know, it’s not just one thing, it’s like four things. But most of them tend to be kind of the origin story of AI data or AI tools that they use because, you know, but for the use of AI tools trained on copyrighted materials, the tools wouldn’t really exist in their current form. So a lot of my clients are wondering about, you know, can I legally use this output if it’s built upon somebody else’s IP? The second ask, the second flavor of that is really, is there liability being created if I take AI content that inadvertently infringes or defames or biases there? So there’s the whole notion of training bias from the training materials that comes out. The third phase is really, you know, can I really own this? Because much of the world does not really give IP rights into AI-generated inventions, copyrighted materials. It’s still kind of a big razor. Then at the end of the day, you know, if it’s an existing relationship, does my contract even contemplate this? So everything from authors contracts on up to just use of data rights that predate AI. Ken Suzan: And Janine and Mark, a question to both of you. How would you describe where we are right now in the AI revolution in media and entertainment? Are we approaching a tipping point? And if so, what are the things we need to watch for? Jeanine Whright: Yeah, I definitely think that we’re at a phase where people are starting to come to the realization that AI is the world’s most powerful creative tool. But that, you know, storytelling and point of view is what creates demand and audiences. And AI doesn’t threaten or change that. But it does mean that as people evolve in this medium, they’re very likely going to need to adopt, utilize and figure out how to hone their craft with these AI-generated content and these AI-generated toolings. So this is, you know, something that people have done certainly in the past in all sorts of ways in using new tools. And we’ve seen that make a significant change in the industry. So you look at, you know, the dawn of animation as a medium. You look at use of special effects, computer-generated imagery in the likes of Pixar. And this is certainly the next phase of that evolution. But because of the power of the tool and what will become the ubiquity of the tool, I think that it’s pretty revolutionary and all the more necessary for people to figure out how to embrace this as part of their creative process. Ken Suzan: Thank you, Janine. Mark, your thoughts? Mark Stignani: Yeah, I mean, I liken this to historically to like the California gold rush right now, because, you know, the technology is so far outpaced in any of the legal frameworks that are available. And so we’re just trying to shoehorn things in left and right here. So, I mean, the courts are beginning to start to engage with the foundational questions. I don’t think they’re quite there yet. I just noticed Anthropic got sued again by another group of people, big music group, because of the downloaded works they’ve done. I mean, so the courts are, you know, the courts are certainly inundated with, you know, too many of these foundational questions. Legislatively, hard to tell. I mean, federal law, the federal government is not moving uniformly on this other than to let the gold rush continue without much check and balance to it. Whereas states are now probably moving a lot faster. Colorado, Illinois, even Minnesota is attempting to craft legislation and limitations on what you can do with content and where to go with it. So, I mean, the things we need to watch for any of the fair use decisions coming out here, you know, some of the SAG-AFTRA contract clauses. And, you know, again, the federal government, I just, you know, I got a big shrug going as to what they’re actually going to come up with here in the next 90 to 100 days. So, but, you know, I think they’ll be forced into doing something sooner than later. Ken Suzan: Okay, let’s jump into the topic of the rise of generative content pipelines. My first question to Janine. Studios and production companies are now building what some call generative content pipelines. This is where AI systems produce everything from scripts to visual effects to voice performances. What efficiencies and creative possibilities does this unlock for the industry? Jeanine Whright: Yeah, so this is quite a bit of what we do. And if I could help pull the curtain back and explain a little bit. Ken Suzan: That’d be great. Jeanine Whright: Yeah, there’s this assumption that, you know, somebody is just sitting behind a machine pushing a button and an out pops, you know, what it is that we’re producing. There’s actually quite a bit of humans still in the loop in the process. You know, we have my team as creators. The other half of my team is the technologists. And those creators are working largely at what we describe as the the tip of the sphere. So they’re, of course, coming up with the concepts of who are these personalities? What are these personalities, characters, backgrounds going to be a lot of like rich personality development? And then they’re creating like what are the formats? What are the kind of story arcs? What is the kinds of content that this this character wants to tell? And what are the audiences they’re desiring to reach and what’s most going to resonate with them? And then what we built internally is what we refer to as an AI orchestration layer. So that allows us to pull from basically all of the different models and then all of these different really cool AI tools. And put those together in such a way and combine those in such a way that we can have the kind of output that our creative team envisions for what they want it to be. And at the end of the day, what you what the stack looks like for, say, a long form audio drama, like the combination of LLMs that we’re going to use in different parts of scripting and production and, you know, ideating and all of that. And the kinds of tooling that we use to actually make it and get it to sound good and have the kinds of personality characteristics that we want to be in an authentic voice for a podcast is going to be different than the tech stack and the tool stack that we might use for a short form Instagram beauty tip reel. And so there’s a lot of art in being able to pull all of these tools together to get them to do exactly what you want them to do. But I think the second part of your question is just as interesting as the first. I mean, what is what possibilities is this unlocking? So of course you’re finding efficiencies in the creative production process. You can move faster. You can do things were less expensive, perhaps, and you were able to do it before. But on the creator side, I think one thing that hasn’t been talked about enough is how it is really like blown wide the aperture of what creators can do and can envision. Traditionally, you know, Hollywood podcasting, many of these businesses that become big businesses have become hit making businesses where they need to focus on a very narrow of wide gen pop content that they think is going to get tens of millions, hundreds of millions in, you know, fans and dollars in revenue for every piece of content that they make. So the problem with that is, is that it really narrows the kinds of things that ultimately get made, which is why you see things happening in Hollywood, like the Blacklist, which is, you know, this famous list of really exceptional content that remains unpredited, unproduced, or why you see things like, you know, 70 to 80% of the top 100 movies being based on pre-existing IP, right? Because these are such huge bets that you need to feel very confident that you’re going to be able to get big, big audiences and big, big dollars from it. But with AI, and really lowering the barrier to entry, lowering the costs of production and marketing, the experimentation that you can do is really, really phenomenal. So, you know, my creative team, if they have an idea, they make it, you know, they don’t have to wring their hands through like a green lighting process of, you know, should we, shouldn’t we, like we, we can make an experiment with lots of different things, we can do various different versions of something. We can see what would this look like if I placed it in the 1800s, or what if I gave this character an Australian accent, and it’s just the power of being able to have this creative partner that can ideate with you and experiment with you at rocket speed. With the creators that are embracing it, you can see how it is really fun for them to be able to have this wide of a range of possibility. Ken Suzan: Mark, when you hear about these generative pipelines, what are the immediate red flags or concerns that come to mind from a legal standpoint? How about ethics underlying all of this? Well, Mark Stignani: that was not, that’s the number one red flag because I mean, we are seeing not just that in the entertainment industry, but it literally at political levels, and the kind of the phrase, to turn the phrase AI slop being generated, we’re seeing, you know, people’s facial expressions altered. In some cases, we’re seeing AI tools being misused to exploit various groups of individuals and genders and age groups. So I mean, there’s a whole lot of things ethically that people are using AI for that just don’t quite cover it. Especially in the entertainment industry, I mean, we’re looking at a fair amount of displacement of human workers without adequate transition support, devaluation of the creative labor. I mean, the thing though that I’m always from a technical standpoint is AI is simply a statistical average of most everything. So it kind of devalues the benefit of having a human creator, a human contribution to it. That’s the ethical side. But on the legal side, I see chain of title issues. I mean, because these are built on very questionable IP ownership stages, I mean, in most of these tools, there has been some large copying, training and taking of copyrighted materials. Is it transformational? Maybe. But there’s certainly not a chain of title, nor is there permission granted for that training. I mentioned SAG-AFTRA earlier, I think there’s a potential set of union contract aspects to this that if you know many of these agreements and use sub-licenses for authors and actor agreements, they weren’t written with AI in mind. So that’s another red flag. And also I just think in indemnification. So if we ultimately get to a point where groups are liable for using content without previous license, then who’s liable? Is the tool maker the liable group or the actual end user? So those are probably my top four red flags. But I think ethics is probably my biggest place because just because we can do something from an ethical standpoint doesn’t mean we should. Jeanine Wright: Yeah, if I can respond to both of those points. I mean, one from a legal perspective, just to be very clear, I mean, we are always pulling from multiple different models and always pulling from multiple different sources. And we even have data sources that we license or use for single source of truth on certain pieces of information. So we’re always pulling things together from multiple different sources. We also have built into our process, you know, internal QAing and checking to make sure that we’re not misappropriating the name or likeness of any existing known personality or character. We are creating original personalities there. We design their voice from scratch. We design their look from scratch. So we’re not on our personality side, we’re not pulling or even taking inspiration from existing intellectual property that’s already out there in creating these personalities. On the ethical side, I agree. I mean, when we came out of stealth, we came out of stealth in September. There was certainly quite a bit of backlash from folks in my—I previously co-founded a company in the audio space. I mean, there’s been many rounds of layoffs in audio and in many other parts of the entertainment industry. So I’m very sensitive to the feedback around, like, is this job displacement? I mean, I do think that the CEO of NVIDIA said it right when he said, you’re likely not going to lose your job to AI, but you will lose your job to somebody who knows how to use AI. I think these tools are transforming the way that content is made and that the faster that people can embrace this tooling, the more likely they’re going to be having the kinds of roles that they want in, you know, in content creation and storytelling in the future. And we are hiring. I’m hiring AI video creators, AI audio creators. I’m hiring AI developers. So people who are looking for those roles, I mean, please reach out to me, we would love to work with you and we’d love to grow with you. We also take the ethics very seriously. For the last few months or so, I’ve met regularly with an ethicist, we talk about all sorts of issues around, you know, is designing AI-generated people, you know, good for humanity? And what about authenticity and transparency and deception, and how are we in building in this space going to avoid some of the problems that we’ve seen with things like social media and other forms of technology? So we keep that very top of mind and we try to build on our own internal values-based system and, you know, continue to elevate and include the humanity as part of the conversation. Ken Suzan: Thank you, Janine. Janine, some argue that AI content pipelines will level the field for filmmaking, giving independent creators access to tools that were once available only to major studios. Is that the future you envision? Jeanine Wright: I do think that with AI you will see an incredible democratization of access to technology and access to these capabilities. So I do think, you know, rise of independent filmmakers, you won’t have as many people who are sitting on a brilliant idea for the next fantastic script or movie that just cannot get it made because they will be able to with these tools, get something made and out there, at least to get the attention of somebody who could then decide that they want to invest in it at a studio kind of level in the future. The other thing that I think is really interesting is that I think, you know, AI will empower more niche content and more creators who can thrive in micro-communities. So it used to be because of this hit generation business model, everything needed to be made for the masses and a lot of content for niche audiences and micro-communities was neglected because there was just no way to make that content commercially viable. But now, if you can leverage AI—we make a pollen report podcast in 300 markets, you know, nobody would have ever made that before, but it is very valuable information, a very valuable piece of content for people who really care about the pollen in their local community. So there’s all sorts of ways that being able to leverage AI is making it more accessible both to the creator and to the audience that is looking for content that truly resonates with them. Ken Suzan: Mark, let’s talk about the legal landscape right now. If someone creates an AI-generated performance that closely resembles a living actor without their consent, what legal recourse does that actor have? Mark Stignani: Well, I mean, I think we can go back to the OpenAI Scarlett Johansson thing where, you know, if it’s simply—well, the “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck” type of aspect there. You know, I think it’s pretty straightforward that they need to walk it back. I mean, the US doesn’t have moral rights, really, but there’s a public visage right, if you will. And so, one of the things that I find predominantly useful here is that these actors likely have rights of publicity there, we probably have a Lanham Act false endorsement claim, and you know, again, if the performance is not parody, and it’s so close to the original performance, we probably have a copyright discussion. But again, all of these laws predate the use of AI, so we’re going to probably see new sets of law. I mean, we’re probably going to see “resurrection” frameworks, we’ll probably have frameworks for synthetic actors and likenesses, but the rules just aren’t there yet. So, unfortunately, your question is largely predictive versus well-settled at this point. Ken Suzan: Janine, your company works with AI actors. How do you navigate the questions of consent and likeness compensation when creating digital performers? Jeanine Wright: I mean, if we—so first of all, if we were to work with a person who is an existing real-life person or was an existing real-life person, then we would work with them to license their name and likeness or their voice or whatever aspects of it we were going to use in creating content in partnership with them. Not typically our business model; we are, as I said, designing all of our personalities from scratch and making all of our content originally. So, we’ve not had to do that historically. Now, you know, the flip side is: can I license my characters as if they’re similar to living characters? Like will I be able to license the name and likeness and voice of my AI-generated personalities? I think the answer is yes and we’re already starting to do that. Ken Suzan: Let’s just switch gears into ethics and AI because I find this to be a really fascinating issue. I want to look at a hypothetical. And this is to both of you, Janine and Mark: an AI system creates a new performance by a beloved actor who passed away decades ago, and the actor’s estate authorizes it, but the actor was known to have expressed opposition to such technology during their lifetime. Is this ethical? Jeanine Wright: This feels like a Gifts, Wills, and Trusts exam question. Ken Suzan: It sounds like it, that’s right. Jeanine Wright: Throwing me back to my law school days. Exactly. What are your thoughts? It’d be interesting to see like who has the rights there. I mean, I think if you have the legal rights, the question is around, you know, is it ethical to go against what you knew was somebody’s wishes at the time? I guess the honest answer is I don’t know. It would depend a lot on the circumstances of the case. I mean, if we were faced with a situation like that where there was a discrepancy, we would probably move away from doing that content out of respect for the deceased and out of a feeling that, you know, if this person felt strongly against it, then it would be less likely that you could make that storytelling exceptional in some way—it would color it in a way that you wouldn’t want in the outcome. And I feel like there’s—I mean, certainly going forward and it’s already happening—there are plenty of people I think who have name, likeness, and voice rights that they are ready to license that wouldn’t have this overhang. Ken Suzan: Mark, your thoughts? Mark Stignani: Yeah, I mean, again, I have to kind of go back to our property law—the Rule Against Perpetuities. You know, from a property standpoint to AI rights and likenesses—since most of the digital replica contracts that I’ve reviewed generally do talk about things in perpetuity. But if it’s not written down for that actor and the estate is doing this—is it ethical? You know, that is the debate. Jeanine Wright: Well, gold star to you, Mark, for bringing up the Rule Against Perpetuities. There’s another one that I haven’t heard for many years. This is really taking me back to my law school days. Ken Suzan: It’s a throwback. Jeanine Wright: The other thing that’s really interesting is that this technology is really so revolutionary and new that it’s hard to even contemplate now what it is going to be in a decade, much less for people who have passed away to have contemplated what the potential for it could be today. So you could have somebody who is, perhaps, a deceased musician who expressed concerns about digital representations of themselves or digital music while they were alive. But now, the possibility is that you could recreate—certainly I could use my technology to recreate—that musician from scratch in a very detailed way, trained on tons of different available data. Not just like a digital twin or a moving image of them, but to really rebuild their personality from scratch, so that they and their music could be reintroduced to totally new generations in a very respectful and authentic way to them. It’s hard to know, with the understanding that that is possible, whether or not somebody who is deceased today would or would not agree to something like that. I mean, many of them might want, under those circumstances, for their music to live on. These deceased actors and musicians could live forever with the power of AI technology. Mark Stignani: Yeah, I really just kind of go to the whole—is deep-faking a famous actor the best way to preserve them or keep them live? Again, that’s a bit more of an ethical question because the deep fakes are getting good enough right now to create huge problems. Even zoom meetings in Hong Kong where a CFO was on a call with five synthetic actors who all looked like his coworkers and they sent a big check out based upon that. So again, the technology is getting good enough to fool people. Jeanine Wright: I think that’s right, Mark, but I guess I would just highlight the same way that it always has been: the ethical line isn’t AI versus human, the ethical line is about deception. Like, are you deceiving people? And if people know what it is that they’re getting and they’re choosing to engage with it, then I think it isn’t about the power of the technology. In our business, we have elected—not everybody has—but we have elected to be AI transparent. So we tell people when they listen to our show, we include it in our show notes, we include it on our socials. Even when we’re designing our characters to be very photo-realistic, we make an extra point to make sure that people know that this is AI-generated content or an AI personality. Like, our intention is not to deceive and to be candid. From a business model perspective, we don’t need to. I mean, there’s already people who know and understand that it is AI, and AI is different than people. Because it is AI, there’s all sorts of things that you can do with it that you would not be able to do with a real person. You know, we get people who ask us on the podcast side, we get all sorts of crazy funny requests. You know, people who say, “Can I text with this personality? Can I talk to them on the phone? Can they help me cook in the kitchen? Can they sing me Happy Birthday? Can they show up at my Zoom meeting today because I think my boss would love it?” You know, all sorts of different ways that people are wanting to engage with these characters. And now we’re in the process of rolling out real-time personalities so people will be able to engage with our personalities live. It is a totally different way that people are able to engage with content, and people can, as they choose, decide what kind of content they want to engage with. Ken Suzan: Jeanine and Mark, we’re coming to the end of this podcast. I would love to keep talking for hours but we have to stay to our timetable here. Last question: five years from now, what percentage of entertainment content do you predict will involve significant AI generation, and will audiences care about that percentage? Jeanine? Jeanine Wright: I mean, I would say 99.9%. I mean, already you’re seeing—I think YouTube did a survey—that it was like 90% of its top creators said that they’re using AI as material components of their content creation process. So, I think this will be the default way that content is created. And content that is not made with AI, you know, there’ll be special film festivals for non-AI generated content, and that will be a special separate thing than the thing that everybody is doing now. Ken Suzan: Mark, your thoughts? Mark Stignani: Yeah, I go a little lower. I mean, I think Jeanine is right that we’re seeing, especially in the low-quality content creation and like the YouTube shorts and things like that, you know, there’s so much AI being pushed forward that the FTC even acquired an “AI slop” title to it. I do think that disclosure will become normalized, that the industries will be pushed to say when something is AI and what is not. And I think it’s very much like, you know, do you care about quality or not? If you value the human input or the human factor in this, there will be an upper tier where it’s “AI-free” or low AI assistant. I think that it’s going to stratify because the stuff coming through the social media platforms right now—I can’t be on it right now just because there’s so much nonsense. Even my children, who are without much AI training at all, find it just too unbelievable for them. So, I think it will become normalized, but I think that we’re going to see a bunch of tiers. Ken Suzan: Well, Jeanine and Mark, this has been a fantastic discussion of an ever-evolving field in IP law. Thank you to both of you for spending time with us today on the IP Friday’s podcast. Jeanine Wright: Thank you so much for having me. Mark Stignani: Appreciate your time. Thank you again.

Text us your questions to answer on a future episode (if you want me to contact you, please include your email)Rolf and Irene Meyer sit down with Jennie to talk about how to decide if an RV rental is right for you as well as some of their favorite places to travel with an RV in in Alaska and the Yukon.GoNorth RV and Car Rental (use code GONOA for a mileage package)Join the Alaska Planning Club on Patreon and ask me anything!Book an Alaska planning session with JennieSign up for Jennie's free weekly email newsletter - Alaska InsiderHave Jennie plan your trip for youJennie's digital workshops and planners (save 10% with code: podcast)Follow Jennie on InstagramSupport the show

Wer am Ball ist, hat gut lachen. Wer Oberwasser hat, dessen Mühlen mahlen gut. Freuen Sie sich auf zwei Stunden mit unserem Sprach-Experten Rolf-Bernhard Essig und vielen, durchweg sprichwörtlichen Redensarten. Er ist bei Bettina Ahne zu Gast.

Concept artists and illustrator Rolf Mohr joined Games Workshop in the late 80s to illustrate amazing space ships and 40k backgrounds.During his time at GW Rolf worked on Space Fleet, Space Marine, White Dwarf and more. As well as illustrating science fiction book covers, later in his career Rolf worked on concept art for films, toys, and video games including Superman, Batman, and the Guardians of the Galaxy.In this interview Rolf Mohr and Jordan Sorcery talk about working for Games Workshop, and creating incredible science fiction art.Rolf Mohr in conversation with Jordan Sorcery._____________________________ Support My Work: ELEMENT GAMES AFFILIATE LINK:https://elementgames.co.uk/?d=11216PATREON:https://www.patreon.com/jordansorceryKO-FI:https://ko-fi.com/jordansorceryDISCORD:https://discord.gg/vtjKzTGevDINSTAGRAM:https://www.instagram.com/jordansorcery/ BLUESKY:https://bsky.app/profile/jordansorcery.bsky.social WEBSITE:https://jordansorcery.com/_____________________________ Art, Music, and Copyright: Images used belong to their respective copyright owners Jordan Sorcery Theme by Joylin Music Jordan Sorcery Heraldry by Becka Moor Jordan Sorcery Heraldry and Theme copyright @jordansorcerySupport the show

Hausmeisterei Video zur Episode Text-/Audio-/Videokommentar einreichen HS-Hörer:innen im Slack treffen Aus der Preshow MysterySpecialGuest, Lehne zum Lümmeln, Dimmen aus der Ferne HS Workshops Workshops HS Workshop-Newsletter Statt Werbung DANKE an alle Spender HSFeedback #hshi von Volker: Nordfoto.de für gute Filmpreise #hshi von Anonym zur digital independence: Wollt ihr mal von Slack weg? #hsfeedback von Rolf: … „#929 – Milchtütenkonfetti“ weiterlesen

Join hosts Rolf Jacobson, Matt Skinner, and Karoline Lewis as they explore the Fifth Sunday after Epiphany lectionary readings for February 8, 2026. This episode dives into Matthew 5:13-20, where Jesus declares "You are the salt of the earth" and "You are the light of the world" - not as invitations, but as statements of fact about Christian identity.The hosts unpack what these metaphors meant in the ancient world. Salt served as both a flavor enhancer and a crucial preservative in a society without refrigeration, making it essential for sustaining life. Light represents the impossibility of keeping faith private in a pluralistic world. These aren't suggestions for what Christians might become, but declarations of who they already are.The conversation explores how believers manifest the kingdom of heaven through their identity as salt and light. The discussion connects this gospel passage with Isaiah 58:1-9a, which challenges fasting practices and calls for genuine justice, Psalm 112:1-9 about those who fear the Lord, and 1 Corinthians 2:1-12, where Paul discusses God's hidden wisdom revealed through the Spirit.Rolf shares insights from his new book "God Meets Us in Our Suffering," connecting Paul's theology of the cross to how God meets us not primarily in our glory and success, but in the places where we think it's impossible for God to be. The conversation emphasizes that having "the mind of Christ" means participating in God's life through the Spirit, not just receiving benefits from Christ's death.Discover how these ancient texts speak to modern questions about public faith, Christian identity, and what it means to be caught up in the life of God.

"He had ulcerative colitis." We're diving into the tales of Atticus Sappington. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Join Matt Skinner, Karoline Lewis, and Rolf Jacobson for an exploration of the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany lectionary texts. This episode unpacks the Beatitudes as Jesus' mission statement and inaugural address, revealing where God's kingdom breaks into the world.The hosts discuss how Matthew's Beatitudes function as Jesus' announcement of the people he will be found with—those the world overlooks or considers unblessed. Matt Skinner explores how these verses bracket Matthew's entire gospel ministry with deep compassion and mercy.Karoline Lewis highlights the transition in the Beatitudes from blessing to action, showing how disciples participate in God's alternative community. Rolf Jacobson connects the Beatitudes to the crowds of suffering people who followed Jesus at the end of Matthew chapter 4.The conversation tackles Micah 6:1-8, examining its powerful indictment and the call to justice, kindness, and humble walking with God. The hosts place this famous verse back into its original context, challenging surface-level readings.The discussion of 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 focuses on Paul's theology of the cross. Rolf explains how Paul argues that the world cannot know God through human wisdom alone—the cross is God's fundamental revelation. Matt introduces Michael Gorman's concept of "cruciformity," exploring what it means to be a cross-shaped community. The hosts connect Paul's message about God choosing the foolish, weak, and lowly to the Beatitudes' vision of blessing.This episode offers preachers and biblical educators practical insights for sermon preparation, showing how these texts speak to contemporary issues of power, blessing, and God's upside-down kingdom.

On December 22, 1990, sisters Linae and Tricia Tiede were held hostage by two men when their family was spending Christmas at their Utah cabin. Their mother, father, and grandmother were shot and the two men planned to burn the house down. The sisters owe their survival to their heroic father, Rolf. This classic "48 Hours" episode last aired on 3/9/2013. Watch all-new episodes of “48 Hours” on Saturdays, and stream on demand on Paramount+. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices