Let me make sure I have this straight. Your claim is that advertising is ineffective, but that no one realizes it because no one (including you) has proper data to back it up. Umm... seriously? You don't think the people who pay billions every year for advertising have any idea what it's worth? And you do because...?
Oh and yes people invented things before patents. Then they VERY closely held onto that information for fear that others would benefit from it if it was shared with anyone other than maybe an apprentice.
This aspect of patents doesn't seem to get much attention, but it's an important one. When we say (correctly) that patents are granted to encourage innovation, we should also mention that they encourage public innovation by forcing the inventor to document and share the details of the invention. This isn't always relevant, since there are plenty of inventions that don't really need much explanation, but it does exist and can be crucial in some cases.
On the contrary, the replication of information is naturally scarce. Throughout human history, replicating information has not been costless. It has been difficult, time-consuming, costly, and imperfect, usually requiring skills and/or tools not available to the average person.
Well, a couple of points here. First, replication has almost always been quick, cheap, and easy compared to composition. This is especially true today, but it's been broadly so at least since the invention of the printing press and was also true, relatively speaking, before that. As much to the point, my claim was specifically about the contemporary situation where the relative resources required are radically dispropotionate.
It is only with technology that the cost of replicating information drops. This seems to me the very opposite of "natural." Copyright serves the purpose of preserving some level of scarcity in a decidedly unnatural environment.
I don't really know what you mean by "natural." Sure, the technological situation today is different from what it was a couple of centuries ago and that's one (but only one!) of the reasons why the debate over the appropriate application of copyright law is an interesting one at the moment, but the issues involved--specifically the relative ease of replication--have been with us for a long time. It is, if you like, "naturally" relatively easy to copy words, ideas, etc. This is not a new development.
It should be clear that nothing in my original post argued aginst copyright restrictions as such. My point is only that such artificial scarcities should be structured so as to provide the maximum possible social benefit in terms of both spurring new works to be created and providing access to those works for further use and development by others. It seems clear that the present set of copyright laws in the US doesn't do a very good job of achieving this balance, but that doesn't mean--as your post seems to imply--that the only alternative would be to abolish all restrictions on copying.
You either adhere to the _spirit_ of the copyright and use the temporary timeframe given to you while you have "copyright" over something which after the required amount of time becomes public domain OR you are outside the scope of copyright and you receive NO LEGAL PROTECTION if someone else wants to do whatever he wants with the thing you "created".
This is a good point, to which we might add/clarify that copyright works on the basis of an artificial scarcity created and enforced by government power. This isn't a bad thing, at least in principle, but it's important to keep in mind that intellectual property, unlike physical property, isn't naturally scarce--you can replicate it ad infinitum at essentially no cost. We collectively agree to create scarcity (thereby maintaining artificially high prices) in order to provide an (additional) incentive for artists/writers/inventors to do what they do, so that we can all benefit from it. But it's a bargain, not an inherent right, and the balance between incentive and return needs to be reviewed and debated both more vigorously and more frequently than it is now.
Confusion between Daylight Saving Time and Standard Time?
Yeah, that was my thought, especially since launchd is process 1, i.e., executes before updating time settings, etc. If so, it seems like a silly bug. In my situation (waking the machine every night to run maintanence jobs), it would mean remembering to change the wake settings every time daylight savings began or ended. It's not exactly the coal mines, but it's hard to believe this could really be the intended behavior.
Upgrading to Tiger moved my cron jobs over to launchd. No problem, but now the scheduled jobs seems to run an hour later than they should. Something scheduled for 3:15 runs at 4:15, for example. Not a huge issue, but my Mac is set to wake up at night to run these jobs - doesn't work so well if they don't fire at the right time.
You're right, this has been there for a while, but I've never gotten it to work reliably. I turn it on, it works for the rest of the session--or maybe a bit longer--and then it stops working. Maybe I have a bad plist file or something. Anyway, it would be cool if this fixed it, because I really do like to be able to tab to everything.
"Dear NYT editors: 'Copy Left' really shouldn't have a space in it. Thanks."
For what it's worth, the author of the article is using "copy" as an adjective, making "the Copy Left" a group of people who practice a new kind of (pseudo-)left politics. Clearly not the same thing as copyleft in the sense most of us are used to seeing it, but maybe justified given the focus of the article, which is much broader than just GPL-type stuff.
And unless you are an Xserve customer with a valid, active support license, Apple doesn't owe you shit. . . . unless you pay Apple, be prepared to wait for a patch.
I agree with most of the rest of your post, but come on, you don't think I paid Apple for my OS? And that security fixes are part of a paid OS (you say yourself that no OS is secure). And that they should be delivered quickly, especially when they're small and easy on the vendor side? And that it was a bad decision to roll an important security fix into an enormous system-wide update?
I've been proud of Apple, but this wasn't one of their best moments.
Not quite. Both forms are acceptable, though Americans (myself among them) tend to prefer the shorter "orient." The Brits (including the author of the original article) apparently use either without preference. Direct/indirect object makes no difference.
I have to disagree. I don't buy my clothes on the basis of commercials -- I buy what's comfortable and what looks good on me. I could give a rat's ass about who's name is on the label . ..
I'm sure this is true, but again it misses the point a bit. "Brand recognition" doesn't (necessarily) mean "brand lust." An ad's job had been done (again, generally speaking) if you're aware that you could buy the product and are willing to consider it. The extent to which advertising is itself responsible for taking the next step and convincing you to select a particular product over another one varies widely by product type, but the brand-recognition step is common (and most important) to all of them.
But what about a world where everyone is sophisticated enough to realize that Coke doesn't add life, that talking ducks don't solve your insurance needs, and that drinking Budweiser is unlikely to attract hordes of Bud-drinking hotties all wanting to meet you?
This isn't really the purpose of most advertising, and certainly not the purpose of the examples given here. For better or worse, advertising builds brand recognition in the hope that, when you buy something, you'll think of the advertised brand/product and at least consider buying it. Coke, McDonald's, The Gap . . . they don't need to advertise to tell you about their products (though they might also do that); they advertise to make sure you remember that they exist and that they offer for sale something you might like.
Incidently - and has been pointed out here before - this is one of the reasons that the importance (to advertisers if not to web sites) of click-through rates for (most) banner ads is vastly overstated. Other than infomercials, most ads aren't intended to spur immediate purchases.
For this reason, it's not simply a matter of ignoring advertising. It's certainly possible to resist advertising, but that's not the same thing. If you even think about buying your next pair of pants from The Gap (or Levi's, or Haggar, etc.), you've already done exactly what the advertiser wanted you to do. You aren't evil, you aren't a sucker, you aren't even abnormal, but you are an operating part of the system. How much it's worth to you to try to avoid advertising altogether or to reject consciously every brand you've ever seen advertised (which is about the only way to avoid its effects) is an individual call.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me make sure I have this straight. Your claim is that advertising is ineffective, but that no one realizes it because no one (including you) has proper data to back it up. Umm ... seriously? You don't think the people who pay billions every year for advertising have any idea what it's worth? And you do because ...?
This aspect of patents doesn't seem to get much attention, but it's an important one. When we say (correctly) that patents are granted to encourage innovation, we should also mention that they encourage public innovation by forcing the inventor to document and share the details of the invention. This isn't always relevant, since there are plenty of inventions that don't really need much explanation, but it does exist and can be crucial in some cases.
Well, a couple of points here. First, replication has almost always been quick, cheap, and easy compared to composition. This is especially true today, but it's been broadly so at least since the invention of the printing press and was also true, relatively speaking, before that. As much to the point, my claim was specifically about the contemporary situation where the relative resources required are radically dispropotionate.
It is only with technology that the cost of replicating information drops. This seems to me the very opposite of "natural." Copyright serves the purpose of preserving some level of scarcity in a decidedly unnatural environment.
I don't really know what you mean by "natural." Sure, the technological situation today is different from what it was a couple of centuries ago and that's one (but only one!) of the reasons why the debate over the appropriate application of copyright law is an interesting one at the moment, but the issues involved--specifically the relative ease of replication--have been with us for a long time. It is, if you like, "naturally" relatively easy to copy words, ideas, etc. This is not a new development.
It should be clear that nothing in my original post argued aginst copyright restrictions as such. My point is only that such artificial scarcities should be structured so as to provide the maximum possible social benefit in terms of both spurring new works to be created and providing access to those works for further use and development by others. It seems clear that the present set of copyright laws in the US doesn't do a very good job of achieving this balance, but that doesn't mean--as your post seems to imply--that the only alternative would be to abolish all restrictions on copying.
This is a good point, to which we might add/clarify that copyright works on the basis of an artificial scarcity created and enforced by government power. This isn't a bad thing, at least in principle, but it's important to keep in mind that intellectual property, unlike physical property, isn't naturally scarce--you can replicate it ad infinitum at essentially no cost. We collectively agree to create scarcity (thereby maintaining artificially high prices) in order to provide an (additional) incentive for artists/writers/inventors to do what they do, so that we can all benefit from it. But it's a bargain, not an inherent right, and the balance between incentive and return needs to be reviewed and debated both more vigorously and more frequently than it is now.
Confusion between Daylight Saving Time and Standard Time?
Yeah, that was my thought, especially since launchd is process 1, i.e., executes before updating time settings, etc. If so, it seems like a silly bug. In my situation (waking the machine every night to run maintanence jobs), it would mean remembering to change the wake settings every time daylight savings began or ended. It's not exactly the coal mines, but it's hard to believe this could really be the intended behavior.
Upgrading to Tiger moved my cron jobs over to launchd. No problem, but now the scheduled jobs seems to run an hour later than they should. Something scheduled for 3:15 runs at 4:15, for example. Not a huge issue, but my Mac is set to wake up at night to run these jobs - doesn't work so well if they don't fire at the right time.
Has anyone else seen this? Any ideas?
You're right, this has been there for a while, but I've never gotten it to work reliably. I turn it on, it works for the rest of the session--or maybe a bit longer--and then it stops working. Maybe I have a bad plist file or something. Anyway, it would be cool if this fixed it, because I really do like to be able to tab to everything.
"Dear NYT editors: 'Copy Left' really shouldn't have a space in it. Thanks."
For what it's worth, the author of the article is using "copy" as an adjective, making "the Copy Left" a group of people who practice a new kind of (pseudo-)left politics. Clearly not the same thing as copyleft in the sense most of us are used to seeing it, but maybe justified given the focus of the article, which is much broader than just GPL-type stuff.
I've been proud of Apple, but this wasn't one of their best moments.
Not quite. Both forms are acceptable, though Americans (myself among them) tend to prefer the shorter "orient." The Brits (including the author of the original article) apparently use either without preference. Direct/indirect object makes no difference.
I'm sure this is true, but again it misses the point a bit. "Brand recognition" doesn't (necessarily) mean "brand lust." An ad's job had been done (again, generally speaking) if you're aware that you could buy the product and are willing to consider it. The extent to which advertising is itself responsible for taking the next step and convincing you to select a particular product over another one varies widely by product type, but the brand-recognition step is common (and most important) to all of them.
This isn't really the purpose of most advertising, and certainly not the purpose of the examples given here. For better or worse, advertising builds brand recognition in the hope that, when you buy something, you'll think of the advertised brand/product and at least consider buying it. Coke, McDonald's, The Gap . . . they don't need to advertise to tell you about their products (though they might also do that); they advertise to make sure you remember that they exist and that they offer for sale something you might like.
Incidently - and has been pointed out here before - this is one of the reasons that the importance (to advertisers if not to web sites) of click-through rates for (most) banner ads is vastly overstated. Other than infomercials, most ads aren't intended to spur immediate purchases.
For this reason, it's not simply a matter of ignoring advertising. It's certainly possible to resist advertising, but that's not the same thing. If you even think about buying your next pair of pants from The Gap (or Levi's, or Haggar, etc.), you've already done exactly what the advertiser wanted you to do. You aren't evil, you aren't a sucker, you aren't even abnormal, but you are an operating part of the system. How much it's worth to you to try to avoid advertising altogether or to reject consciously every brand you've ever seen advertised (which is about the only way to avoid its effects) is an individual call.
The "10 watt difference" suddenly is 537.6kwh/day, or 193536kwh/year.
Off by a factor of 10, which makes the annual cost $2,700, not $27,000.